+Independent Penetration Agent or Team

Independent Penetration Agent or Team

Description

Mechanisms exist to utilize an independent assessor or penetration team to perform penetration testing.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Note: Typically not required at this size; use independent third party when penetration testing is required

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

∙ Independent third-party penetration tester (not the internal IT team or MSP that built the environment)

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

∙ Third-party independent penetration testing

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

∙ Enterprise independent penetration testing program (qualified third-party testers)

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

∙ Enterprise independent pen testing program
∙ Qualified third-party pen test teams
∙ Annual and ad-hoc testing
∙ Full red team exercises

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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, or contracted professionals, use red team exercises to simulate attempts by adversaries to compromise TAASD in accordance with entity-defined rules of engagement.

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 utilize an independent assessor or penetration team to perform penetration testing.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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. Panoramica

1.1 Riferimenti

1.2 Requisiti identificati

1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate

2. Requisiti identificati

Requisiti

3. Regolamentazioni correlate

Regolamentazioni
EULAW Articolo 27 Requisiti per i soggetti incaricati dello svolgimento dei test per lo svolgimento dei TLPT
-
EULAW Articolo 27 1

1.   Per lo svolgimento dei test di penetrazione basati su minacce, le entità finanziarie ricorrono unicamente a soggetto incaricato dello svolgimento dei test che:

a)

possano vantare il più alto grado di idoneità e reputazione;

b)

possiedano capacità tecniche e organizzative e dimostrino esperienza specifica nel campo delle analisi delle minacce, dei test di penetrazione e dei test red team;

c)

siano certificati da un ente di accreditamento in uno Stato membro o rispettino codici formali di condotta o quadri etici;

d)

forniscano una garanzia indipendente o una relazione di audit concernente la solida gestione dei rischi derivanti dallo svolgimento di TLPT, comprese la dovuta protezione delle informazioni riservate dell’entità finanziaria e il risarcimento dei rischi commerciali dell’entità finanziaria;

e)

siano debitamente e pienamente coperti da un’assicurazione di responsabilità professionale, anche contro i rischi di colpa e negligenza.
EULAW Articolo 27 2

2.   Quando ricorrono a soggetto incaricato dello svolgimento dei test interni, le entità finanziare devono provvedere affinché, oltre all’obbligo di cui al paragrafo 1, siano soddisfatte le condizioni seguenti:

a)

tale ricorso è stato approvato dall’autorità competente interessata o dall’autorità pubblica unica designata conformemente all’articolo 26, paragrafi 9 e 10;

b)

l’autorità competente interessata ha verificato che l’entità finanziaria dispone di risorse dedicate sufficienti e che essa ha garantito che siano evitati conflitti d’interessi durante le fasi di progettazione ed esecuzione del test; e

c)

il soggetto che fornisce analisi delle minacce è esterno all’entità finanziaria.
EULAW Articolo 27 3

3.   Le entità finanziarie garantiscono che i contratti conclusi con i soggetti incaricati dello svolgimento dei test esterni prevedano una solida gestione dei risultati dei TLPT e che qualsiasi trattamento dei dati, comprese la generazione, la conservazione, l’aggregazione, l’elaborazione, la segnalazione, la comunicazione o la distruzione, non comporti rischi per l’entità finanziaria.

Ticket collegati

Collegamenti
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 06
is related to Process
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OPS-22.01AS
blocks PSS-02.01AC
is blocked by VPM-19 Independent Penetration Agent or Team – Assessment Procedure
blocks CA-08(01) Independent Penetration Testing Agent or Team
blocks CA-08(01) [H] Independent Penetration Testing Agent or Team
  • 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.