+Threat Intelligence Program
|
Threat Intelligence Program
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement a threat intelligence program that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability that can influence the development of the system and security architectures, selection of security solutions, monitoring, threat hunting, response and recovery activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Subscribe to free threat intelligence feeds (e.g., CISA alerts)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ CISA alerts subscription
∙ Basic threat awareness program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Threat intelligence program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Threat intelligence program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Threat intelligence program
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Threat Management (THR) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with THR domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Threat management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Threat Management (THR) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with THR domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with THR domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with THR domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Threat management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Threat management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Threat Management (THR) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with THR domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with THR domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A threat management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain THR domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of threat management operations (e.g., threat intelligence solution and bug bounty solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with THR domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement a threat intelligence program that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability that can influence the development of the system and security architectures, selection of security solutions, monitoring, threat hunting, response and recovery activities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Threat Management (THR) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Vue d’ensemble
1.1 Références
1.2 Exigences identifiées
1.3 Réglementations associées
2. Exigences identifiées
Exigences
| Source |
Exigence |
3. Réglementations associées
Réglementations
| Source |
Réglementation |
|
EULAW
|
Article 2 Éléments généraux des politiques, procédures, protocoles et outils de sécurité des TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 3 Gestion du risque lié aux TIC
Article 3
Gestion du risque lié aux TIC
Les entités financières élaborent, documentent et mettent en œuvre des politiques et procédures de gestion du risque lié aux TIC qui contiennent l’ensemble des éléments suivants:
a)
l’indication de l’approbation du niveau de tolérance au risque lié aux TIC déterminé conformément à l’article 6, paragraphe 8, point b), du règlement (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
une procédure et une méthode d’évaluation du risque lié aux TIC, précisant:
i)
les vulnérabilités et les menaces qui affectent ou peuvent affecter les fonctions opérationnelles soutenues et les systèmes de TIC et actifs de TIC qui les soutiennent;
ii)
les indicateurs quantitatifs ou qualitatifs à utiliser pour mesurer l’incidence et la probabilité des vulnérabilités et des menaces visées au point i);
c)
la procédure de détermination, de mise en œuvre et de documentation des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC pour les risques liés aux TIC qui ont été identifiés et évalués, y compris la définition des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC nécessaires pour ramener ce risque dans les limites du niveau de tolérance au risque visé au point a);
d)
pour les risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui sont toujours présents à l’issue de la mise en œuvre des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC visées au point c):
i)
des dispositions relatives à l’identification de ces risques résiduels liés aux TIC;
ii)
l’attribution des rôles et des responsabilités concernant:
1)
l’acceptation des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui dépassent le niveau de tolérance au risque de l’entité financière visé au point a);
2)
le processus de réexamen visé au point iv) du présent point d);
iii)
l’établissement d’un inventaire des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui ont été acceptés, accompagné d’une justification de leur acceptation;
iv)
des dispositions relatives au réexamen, au moins une fois par an, des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui ont été acceptés, comprenant:
1)
l’indication de tout changement dans les risques résiduels liés aux TIC;
2)
l’évaluation des mesures d’atténuation disponibles;
3)
une évaluation indiquant si les raisons justifiant l’acceptation des risques résiduels liés aux TIC sont toujours valables et applicables à la date du réexamen;
e)
des dispositions qui prévoient le suivi:
i)
de tout changement dans l’éventail des risques liés aux TIC et des cybermenaces;
ii)
des vulnérabilités et menaces internes et externes;
iii)
du risque lié aux TIC de l’entité financière, et qui permettent de détecter rapidement les changements susceptibles d’avoir une incidence sur son profil de risque lié aux TIC;
f)
des dispositions relatives à un processus garantissant la prise en compte de toute modification de la stratégie commerciale et de la stratégie de résilience opérationnelle numérique de l’entité financière.
La procédure visée au point c) du premier alinéa garantit, aux fins dudit point:
a)
le suivi de l’efficacité des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC qui sont mises en œuvre;
b)
une évaluation indiquant si les niveaux de tolérance au risque établis pour l’entité financière ont été atteints;
c)
une évaluation indiquant si l’entité financière a pris, si nécessaire, des mesures pour corriger ou améliorer ces mesures.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 23 Détection des activités anormales et critères pour la détection des incidents liés aux TIC et la réponse à ces incidents
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 31 Gestion du risque lié aux TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 34 Sécurité des opérations de TIC
Article 34
Sécurité des opérations de TIC
Dans le cadre de leurs systèmes, protocoles et outils, et pour tous les actifs de TIC, les entités financières visées à l’article 16, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554:
a)
suivent et gèrent le cycle de vie de tous les actifs de TIC;
b)
surveillent si les actifs de TIC sont pris en charge par des prestataires tiers de services TIC des entités financières, le cas échéant;
c)
définissent les besoins en capacités de leurs actifs de TIC et les mesures visant à maintenir et à améliorer la disponibilité et l’efficacité des systèmes de TIC et à prévenir les déficits de capacités en matière de TIC avant qu’ils ne se concrétisent;
d)
effectuent des scans et évaluations automatisés des vulnérabilités des actifs de TIC de façon proportionnée à leur classification visée à l’article 30, paragraphe 1, et au profil de risque global de l’actif de TIC, et déploient des correctifs pour remédier aux vulnérabilités identifiées;
e)
gèrent les risques liés aux actifs de TIC obsolètes, non pris en charge ou hérités;
f)
journalisent les événements liés au contrôle des accès logiques et physiques, aux opérations de TIC, y compris aux activités liées aux systèmes et au trafic réseau, et à la gestion des changements dans les TIC;
g)
définissent et mettent en œuvre des mesures de suivi et d’analyse des informations sur les activités et comportements anormaux pour les opérations de TIC critiques ou importantes;
h)
mettent en œuvre des mesures de suivi des informations pertinentes et actualisées sur les cybermenaces;
i)
mettent en œuvre des mesures visant à détecter les éventuelles fuites d’informations, les codes malveillants et les autres menaces pour la sécurité, ainsi que les vulnérabilités de notoriété publique dans les logiciels et le matériel, et vérifient la disponibilité de nouvelles mises à jour de sécurité correspondantes.
Aux fins du point f), les entités financières adaptent le niveau de détail des journaux en fonction de leur finalité et de leur utilisation des actifs de TIC produisant ces journaux.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 13 Apprentissage et évolution
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 Dispositifs de partage d’informations et de renseignements sur les cybermenaces
►C2
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 13 1
1. Financial entities shall have in place capabilities and staff to gather information on vulnerabilities and cyber threats, ICT-related incidents, in particular cyber-attacks, and analyse the impact they are likely to have on their digital operational resilience.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 1
1. Financial entities may exchange amongst themselves cyber threat information and intelligence, including indicators of compromise, tactics, techniques, and procedures, cyber security alerts and configuration tools, to the extent that such information and intelligence sharing:
|
(a)
|
aims to enhance the digital operational resilience of financial entities, in particular through raising awareness in relation to cyber threats, limiting or impeding the cyber threats’ ability to spread, supporting defence capabilities, threat detection techniques, mitigation strategies or response and recovery stages;
|
|
(b)
|
takes places within trusted communities of financial entities;
|
|
(c)
|
is implemented through information-sharing arrangements that protect the potentially sensitive nature of the information shared, and that are governed by rules of conduct in full respect of business confidentiality, protection of personal data in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and guidelines on competition policy.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, point (c), the information-sharing arrangements shall define the conditions for participation and, where appropriate, shall set out the details on the involvement of public authorities and the capacity in which they may be associated to the information-sharing arrangements, on the involvement of ICT third-party service providers, and on operational elements, including the use of dedicated IT platforms.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 3
3. Financial entities shall notify competent authorities of their participation in the information-sharing arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, upon validation of their membership, or, as applicable, of the cessation of their membership, once it takes effect.
|
Tickets liés
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|