|
+Automated Records Management & Review |
Automated Records Management & ReviewDescriptionAutomated mechanisms exist to facilitate the maintenance and review of visitor access records.Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Note: Typically not required at this size; paper or spreadsheet visitor log reviewed periodicallySmall Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Electronic visitor log (e.g., iLobby, Envoy free tier)∙ Monthly review of visitor records Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Visitor management system with automated record retention and review reports (e.g., Envoy, iLobby)Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Visitor management system integrated with PACS∙ Automated retention and periodic review reporting ∙ Anomaly reporting (after-hours, repeated visits) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise visitor management platform with automated records management, retention and review workflows∙ Integration with PACS and SIEM ∙ Compliance reporting on visitor records SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallySCR-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 TrackedSCR-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 DefinedPhysical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access). ▪ 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 PES 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 facilitate the maintenance and review of visitor access records. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledUtilize 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 ImprovingUtilize 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 Riferimenti1.2 Requisiti identificati1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate2. Requisiti identificati
3. Regolamentazioni correlate
Ticket collegati
|