+Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks
|
Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ TLS for all internet traffic ∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Encryption-in-transit standards ∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement ∙ Certificate management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program ∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement ∙ Certificate lifecycle management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise encryption governance program ∙ TLS 1.3+ ∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi) ∙ Automated certificate monitoring
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). ▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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. Pregled
1.1 Reference
1.2 Utvrđeni zahtjevi
1.3 Povezani propisi
2. Utvrđeni zahtjevi
3. Povezani propisi
Propisi
| Izvor |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Članak 13. Upravljanje mrežnom sigurnosti
Članak 13.
Upravljanje mrežnom sigurnosti
Financijski subjekti u sklopu mjera zaštite mreža od neovlaštenih upada i zlouporabe podataka izrađuju, dokumentiraju i provode politike, postupke, protokole i alate za upravljanje mrežnom sigurnosti, što uključuje sve sljedeće:
(a)
razdvajanje i segmentaciju IKT sustavâ i mreža, pri čemu se uzimaju u obzir:
i.
ključnost ili važnost funkcije koja se podupire IKT sustavima i mrežama;
ii.
klasifikacija utvrđena u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554;
iii.
ukupni profil rizičnosti IKT imovine za koju se ti IKT sustavi i mreže upotrebljavaju;
(b)
dokumentiranje svih mrežnih veza i tokova podataka financijskog subjekta;
(c)
upotrebu zasebne namjenske mreže za upravljanje IKT imovinom;
(d)
utvrđivanje i provedbu kontrole pristupa mreži kako bi se spriječilo i otkrilo povezivanje neovlaštenih uređaja ili sustava na mrežu financijskog sustava ili krajnje točke koje ne ispunjavaju zahtjeve financijskog subjekta za sigurnost;
(e)
enkripciju mrežnih veza koje prolaze kroz korporativne mreže, javne mreže, domaće mreže, mreže treće strane i bežične mreže u pogledu komunikacijskih protokola koji se upotrebljavaju, pri čemu se uzimaju u obzir rezultati odobrene klasifikacije podataka, rezultati procjene IKT rizika i enkripcija mrežnih veza iz članka 6. stavka 2.;
(f)
oblikovanje mreža u skladu sa zahtjevima za sigurnost IKT-a koje utvrdi financijski subjekt, pri čemu se uzimaju u obzir vodeće prakse kako bi se osigurala povjerljivost, cjelovitost i dostupnost mreže;
(g)
zaštitu mrežnog prometa između unutarnjih mreža i interneta te drugih vanjskih veza;
(h)
utvrđivanje uloga i odgovornosti te koraka za određivanje, provedbu, odobrenje, promjenu i preispitivanje pravila za vatrozid i filtara veza;
(i)
provedbu preispitivanja mrežne strukture i oblikovanja mrežne sigurnosti jedanput godišnje, a periodički za mikropoduzeća, kako bi se utvrdile potencijalne ranjivosti;
(j)
mjere za privremenu izolaciju, prema potrebi, podmreža te mrežnih komponenata i uređaja;
(k)
provedbu polazne sigurne konfiguracije svih mrežnih komponenata te povećanje sigurnosti mreže i mrežnih uređaja u skladu s uputama dobavljača te, prema potrebi, primjenjivim standardima kako su definirani u članku 2. točki 1. Uredbe (EU) br. 1025/2012 i vodećim praksama;
(l)
postupke za ograničavanje, zaključavanje i prekid rada sustava i daljinskih sesija nakon određenog razdoblja neaktivnosti;
(m)
za ugovore o mrežnim uslugama:
i.
utvrđivanje i specifikaciju mjera za sigurnost IKT-a i informacijsku sigurnost, razina usluge i zahtjeva za upravljanje za sve mrežne usluge;
ii.
pruža li te usluge pružatelj IKT usluga unutar grupe ili treća strana pružatelj IKT usluga.
Za potrebe točke (h) financijski subjekti redovito provode preispitivanje pravila za vatrozid i filtara veza u skladu s klasifikacijom iz članka 8. stavka 1. Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554 i ukupnim profilnom rizičnosti uključenih IKT sustava. Za IKT sustave kojima se podupiru ključne ili važne funkcije, financijski subjekti barem svakih šest mjeseci provjeravaju primjerenost postojećih pravila za vatrozid i filtara veza.
|
|
EULAW
|
Članak 14. Zaštita podataka u prijenosu
-
|
Povezani zadaci
Poveznice
| Vrsta poveznice |
Zadatak |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 08 |
|
is related to
|
Technology |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Identity Compromise / Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL) |
|
blocks
|
Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01AS |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Identity Compromise / Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL) |
|
blocks
|
Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01AS |
|
is blocked by
|
NET-37 Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [L] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [L] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [M] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [M] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [H] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [H] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation |
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|