+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. Panoramica

1.1 Riferimenti

1.2 Requisiti identificati

1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate

2. Requisiti identificati

Requisiti

3. Regolamentazioni correlate

Regolamentazioni
EULAW Articolo 13 Gestione della sicurezza della rete

Articolo 13

Gestione della sicurezza della rete

Le entità finanziarie, nell’ambito delle salvaguardie che garantiscono la sicurezza delle reti contro le intrusioni e l’uso improprio dei dati, elaborano, documentano e attuano politiche, procedure, protocolli e strumenti per la gestione della sicurezza della rete che comprendano tutti gli aspetti seguenti:

a) 

la separazione e la segmentazione delle reti e dei sistemi di TIC tenendo in considerazione:

i) 

la criticità o l’importanza della funzione che le reti e i sistemi di TIC supportano;

ii) 

la classificazione effettuata conformemente all’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (UE) 2022/2554;

iii) 

il profilo di rischio complessivo delle risorse TIC che utilizzano tali reti e sistemi di TIC;

b) 

la documentazione di tutte le connessioni di rete e dei flussi di dati dell’entità finanziaria;

c) 

l’uso di una rete separata e dedicata per l’amministrazione delle risorse TIC;

d) 

l’identificazione e l’attuazione di controlli di accesso alla rete per prevenire e individuare le connessioni alla rete dell’entità finanziaria da parte di dispositivi o sistemi non autorizzati o di endpoint non conformi ai requisiti di sicurezza dell’entità finanziaria;

e) 

la cifratura delle connessioni di rete che passano su reti aziendali, reti pubbliche, reti domestiche, reti di terzi e reti wireless, per i protocolli di comunicazione utilizzati, tenendo conto dei risultati della classificazione dei dati approvata, dei risultati della valutazione dei rischi informatici e della cifratura delle connessioni di rete di cui all’articolo 6, paragrafo 2;

f) 

la configurazione delle reti in linea con i requisiti di sicurezza delle TIC stabiliti dall’entità finanziaria, tenendo conto delle pratiche più avanzate per garantire la riservatezza, l’integrità e la disponibilità della rete;

g) 

la protezione del traffico di rete tra le reti interne e Internet e altre connessioni esterne;

h) 

l’identificazione dei ruoli e delle responsabilità e delle fasi per la specifica, l’implementazione, l’approvazione, la modifica e il riesame delle regole del firewall e dei filtri di connessione;

i) 

l’esecuzione di riesami dell’architettura di rete e della configurazione della sicurezza di rete una volta all’anno, e periodicamente per le microimprese, al fine di identificare potenziali vulnerabilità;

j) 

le misure per isolare temporaneamente, ove necessario, sottoreti e componenti e dispositivi di rete;

k) 

l’implementazione di una configurazione di base sicura di tutti i componenti della rete e l’hardening della rete e dei dispositivi di rete in linea con le istruzioni del fornitore, le pratiche più avanzate e, se del caso, con le norme definite all’articolo 2, punto 1), del regolamento (UE) n. 1025/2012;

l) 

le procedure per limitare, bloccare e terminare le sessioni di sistema e remote dopo un determinato periodo di inattività;

m) 

per gli accordi sui servizi di rete:

i) 

l’identificazione e la specifica delle misure di sicurezza delle TIC e delle informazioni, dei livelli di servizio e dei requisiti di gestione di tutti i servizi di rete;

ii) 

se tali servizi sono forniti da un fornitore infragruppo di servizi TIC o da fornitori terzi di servizi TIC.

Ai fini della lettera h), le entità finanziarie effettuano periodicamente il riesame delle regole del firewall e dei filtri di connessione in base alla classificazione effettuata conformemente all’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (UE) 2022/2554 e al profilo di rischio complessivo dei sistemi di TIC coinvolti. Per i sistemi TIC che supportano funzioni essenziali o importanti, le entità finanziarie verificano l’adeguatezza delle regole del firewall e dei filtri di connessione esistenti almeno ogni sei mesi.
EULAW Articolo 14 Protezione delle informazioni in transito
-

Ticket collegati

Collegamenti
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 -

    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.