+Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
|
Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use sandbox environment for testing suspicious files/code
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Sandbox analysis tool (e.g., Any.run, free tiers)
∙ Isolation policy for suspicious activity
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Dynamic sandboxing solution (e.g., Cuckoo Sandbox)
∙ Network isolation for suspected threats
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise sandbox platform (e.g., Palo Alto WildFire, Cisco Threat Grid)
∙ Automated isolation workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sandboxing and dynamic isolation platform
∙ Automated containment via SOAR
∙ Network quarantine capabilities
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
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
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 capability exists to automatically dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
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
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regolamentazioni correlate
Regolamentazioni
| Fonte |
Regolamentazione |
|
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.
|
Ticket collegati
- 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.
|