+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Incident Response Training
Description
Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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. Áttekintés
| Megnevezés |
Szabvány |
|
Simulated Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
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.
|
|
Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-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 use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 automatically provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
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.
|
1.1 Hivatkozások
1.2 Azonosított követelmények
1.3 Kapcsolódó szabályozások
2. Azonosított követelmények
Követelmények
| Forrás |
Követelmény |
3. Kapcsolódó szabályozások
Szabályozások
| Forrás |
Szabályozás |
|
EULAW
|
14. cikk (1)
A 6. cikk (1) bekezdésében említett IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszer részeként a pénzügyi szervezeteknek válsághelyzeti kommunikációs tervvel kell rendelkezniük, amely legalább a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidensekről és sérülékenységekről lehetővé teszi az ügyfelek, partnerek, valamint adott esetben a nyilvánosság felelős tájékoztatását.
|
|
EULAW
|
14. cikk (2)
Az IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszer részeként a pénzügyi szervezeteknek a saját személyzetükre és a külső érdekeltekre vonatkozó kommunikációs szabályzatot kell bevezetniük. A személyzetre vonatkozó kommunikációs szabályzatban figyelembe kell venni annak szükségességét, hogy különbséget tegyenek az IKT-kockázatkezelésért, különösen a reagálásért és helyreállításért felelős munkatársak, valamint a tájékoztatást igénylő munkatársak között.
|
|
EULAW
|
14. cikk (3)
A pénzügyi szervezeten belül legalább egy személyt meg kell bízni az IKT-vonatkozású incidensekre vonatkozó kommunikációs stratégia végrehajtásával, akinek e célból a nyilvánossággal és a médiával kapcsolatos feladatot is el kell látnia.
|
|
EULAW
|
19. cikk (1)
A pénzügyi szervezeteknek a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidenseket az e cikk (4) bekezdésével összhangban be kell jelenteniük a 46. cikkben említett releváns illetékes hatóságnak. Amennyiben egy pénzügyi szervezet a 46. cikkben említett illetékes nemzeti hatóságok közül egynél több felügyelete alá tartozik, a tagállamok egyetlen illetékes hatóságot jelölnek ki az e cikkben előírt funkciók és kötelezettségek végrehajtásáért felelős releváns illetékes hatóságként. Az 1024/2013/EU rendelet 6. cikkének (4) bekezdésével összhangban jelentősnek minősített hitelintézetek bejelentik a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidenseket a 2013/36/EU irányelv 4. cikkével összhangban kijelölt releváns illetékes nemzeti hatóságnak, amely haladéktalanul továbbítja az említett jelentést az EKB-nak. Az első albekezdés alkalmazásában a pénzügyi szervezeteknek a releváns információk összegyűjtését és elemzését követően a 20. cikkben említett sablonok felhasználásával el kell készíteniük az e cikk (4) bekezdésében említett kezdeti értesítést és jelentéseket, és be kell nyújtaniuk azokat az illetékes hatóságnak. Abban az esetben, ha technikai okokból lehetetlen a kezdeti értesítés mintadokumentum használatával történő benyújtása, a pénzügyi szervezeteknek alternatív módon kell értesíteniük arról az illetékes hatóságot. A (4) bekezdésben említett kezdeti értesítésnek és jelentéseknek tartalmazniuk kell minden olyan információt, amelyre az illetékes hatóságnak szüksége van a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidens jelentőségének megállapításához és esteleges határokon átnyúló hatásainak értékeléséhez. A pénzügyi szervezet által a releváns illetékes hatóság felé történő, az első albekezdés alapján történő bejelentés sérelme nélkül a tagállamok megállapíthatják továbbá, hogy a pénzügyi szervezetek egy részének vagy mindegyikének az e cikk (4) bekezdésében említett kezdeti értesítést és minden egyes jelentést be kell nyújtaniuk a 20. cikkben említett sablonok felhasználásával az (EU) 2022/2555 irányelvvel összhangban kijelölt vagy létrehozott illetékes hatóságoknak vagy számítógép-biztonsági incidensekre reagáló csoportoknak (CSIRT-ek) is.
|
|
EULAW
|
19. cikk (2)
A pénzügyi szervezetek önkéntes alapon értesíthetik a releváns illetékes hatóságot a jelentős kiberfenyegetésekről, amennyiben úgy ítélik meg, hogy a fenyegetés relevanciával bír a pénzügyi rendszer, a szolgáltatás igénybevevői vagy az ügyfelek számára. A releváns illetékes hatóság átadhatja az ilyen információkat a (6) bekezdésben említett egyéb releváns hatóságoknak. Az 1024/2013/EU rendelet 6. cikkének (4) bekezdésével összhangban jelentősnek minősített hitelintézetek önkéntes alapon értesíthetik a jelentős kiberfenyegetésekről a 2013/36/EU irányelv 4. cikkével összhangban kijelölt, releváns illetékes nemzeti hatóságot, amelynek haladéktalanul továbbítania kell az értesítést az EKB-nak. A tagállamok dönthetnek úgy, hogy azon pénzügyi szervezetek, amelyek az első albekezdéssel összhangban önkéntes alapon értesítést küldenek, az említett értesítést az (EU) 2022/2555 irányelvvel összhangban kijelölt vagy létrehozott CSIRT-eknek is továbbíthatják.
|
|
EULAW
|
19. cikk (3)
Amennyiben jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidens következik be, és hatással van az ügyfelek pénzügyi érdekeire, a pénzügyi szervezeteknek – amint azt észlelik – indokolatlan késedelem nélkül tájékoztatniuk kell az ügyfeleiket a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidensről és az ilyen incidens káros hatásainak enyhítésére tett intézkedésekről. Jelentős kiberfenyegetés esetén a pénzügyi szervezeteknek adott esetben tájékoztatniuk kell a potenciálisan érintett ügyfeleiket minden olyan megfelelő védelmi intézkedésről, amelyek meghozatalát az utóbbiak mérlegelhetik.
|
|
EULAW
|
19. cikk (4)
A pénzügyi szervezeteknek a 20. cikk első bekezdése a) pontjának ii. alpontjával összhangban megállapítandó határidőkön belül be kell nyújtaniuk a releváns illetékes hatóságnak a következőket:
b)
időközi jelentés az a) pontban említett kezdeti értesítést követően, amint az eredeti incidens állapota jelentősen megváltozik, vagy a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidens kezelése a rendelkezésre álló új információk alapján módosul, amelyet adott esetben aktualizált bejelentéseknek kell követniük minden olyan alkalommal, amikor releváns állapotfrissítés áll rendelkezésre, valamint az illetékes hatóság külön kérésére;
c)
zárójelentés, amikor lezárult a kiváltó okok elemzése, függetlenül attól, hogy enyhítő intézkedések végrehajtására sor került-e már, és amikor rendelkezésre állnak a hatással kapcsolatban a becslések helyettesítésére alkalmas tényadatok.
|
|
EULAW
|
19. cikk (5)
A pénzügyi szervezetek az uniós és nemzeti ágazati jogszabályokkal összhangban kiszervezhetik az e cikk szerinti bejelentési kötelezettségeket harmadik fél szolgáltatónak. Az ilyen kiszervezés esetén a pénzügyi szervezet továbbra is teljes felelősséggel tartozik az incidensbejelentési követelmények teljesítéséért.
|
|
EULAW
|
45. cikk (3)
A pénzügyi szervezeteknek értesíteniük kell az illetékes hatóságokat az (1) bekezdésben említett információmegosztási megállapodásban való részvételükről a tagságuk érvényesítésekor, vagy adott esetben a tagságuk megszűnéséről annak hatálybalépésekor.
|
|
EULAW
|
34. cikk Az érintett tájékoztatása az adatvédelmi incidensről
|
|
EULAW
|
23. cikk Jelentéstételi kötelezettség
|
Kapcsolt feladatok
- 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.
|