+Session Lock

Session Lock

Description

Mechanisms exist to initiate a session lock after an organization-defined time period of inactivity, or upon receiving a request from a user and retain the session lock until the user reestablishes access using established identification and authentication methods.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

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

Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.

Level 3 Well Defined

Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 CFG 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 initiate a session lock after an organization-defined time period of inactivity, or upon receiving a request from a user and retain the session lock until the user reestablishes access using established identification and authentication methods.

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

Naslov Standard

1.1 Reference

1.2 Utvrđeni zahtjevi

1.3 Povezani propisi

2. Utvrđeni zahtjevi

Zahtjevi
Izvor Zahtjev

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 18. Fizička i okolišna sigurnost
-

Povezani zadaci

  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.