+Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
|
Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Description
Mechanisms exist to enforce Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to restrict access to individuals assigned specific roles with legitimate business needs.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. ▪ Active Directory (AD), or a similar technologies, are used to centrally manage identities and permissions, but asset/process owners are authorized to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS. ▪ IAM restricts the assignment of privileged accounts to entity-defined personnel and/or roles (privilege assignment requires management approval).
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 enforce Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for TAASD to restrict access to individuals assigned specific roles with legitimate business needs.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
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 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 32 Sicurezza del trattamento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 32 Sicurezza del trattamento
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 27 Datenverarbeitung zu wissenschaftlichen oder historischen Forschungszwecken und zu statistischen Zwecken
(1) Abweichend von Artikel 9 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 ist die Verarbeitung besonderer Kategorien personenbezogener Daten im Sinne des Artikels 9 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 auch ohne Einwilligung für wissenschaftliche oder historische Forschungszwecke oder für statistische Zwecke zulässig, wenn die Verarbeitung zu diesen Zwecken erforderlich ist und die Interessen des Verantwortlichen an der Verarbeitung die Interessen der betroffenen Person an einem Ausschluss der Verarbeitung erheblich überwiegen. Der Verantwortliche sieht angemessene und spezifische Maßnahmen zur Wahrung der Interessen der betroffenen Person gemäß § 22 Absatz 2 Satz 2 vor. (2) Die in den Artikeln 15, 16, 18 und 21 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 vorgesehenen Rechte der betroffenen Person sind insoweit beschränkt, als diese Rechte voraussichtlich die Verwirklichung der Forschungs- oder Statistikzwecke unmöglich machen oder ernsthaft beinträchtigen und die Beschränkung für die Erfüllung der Forschungs- oder Statistikzwecke notwendig ist. Das Recht auf Auskunft gemäß Artikel 15 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 besteht darüber hinaus nicht, wenn die Daten für Zwecke der wissenschaftlichen Forschung erforderlich sind und die Auskunftserteilung einen unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand erfordern würde. (3) Ergänzend zu den in § 22 Absatz 2 genannten Maßnahmen sind zu wissenschaftlichen oder historischen Forschungszwecken oder zu statistischen Zwecken verarbeitete besondere Kategorien personenbezogener Daten im Sinne des Artikels 9 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 zu anonymisieren, sobald dies nach dem Forschungs- oder Statistikzweck möglich ist, es sei denn, berechtigte Interessen der betroffenen Person stehen dem entgegen. Bis dahin sind die Merkmale gesondert zu speichern, mit denen Einzelangaben über persönliche oder sachliche Verhältnisse einer bestimmten oder bestimmbaren Person zugeordnet werden können. Sie dürfen mit den Einzelangaben nur zusammengeführt werden, soweit der Forschungs- oder Statistikzweck dies erfordert. (4) Der Verantwortliche darf personenbezogene Daten nur veröffentlichen, wenn die betroffene Person eingewilligt hat oder dies für die Darstellung von Forschungsergebnissen über Ereignisse der Zeitgeschichte unerlässlich ist.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 48 Verarbeitung besonderer Kategorien personenbezogener Daten
(1) Die Verarbeitung besonderer Kategorien personenbezogener Daten ist nur zulässig, wenn sie zur Aufgabenerfüllung unbedingt erforderlich ist. (2) Werden besondere Kategorien personenbezogener Daten verarbeitet, sind geeignete Garantien für die Rechtsgüter der betroffenen Personen vorzusehen. Geeignete Garantien können insbesondere sein - 1.
spezifische Anforderungen an die Datensicherheit oder die Datenschutzkontrolle, - 2.
die Festlegung von besonderen Aussonderungsprüffristen, - 3.
die Sensibilisierung der an Verarbeitungsvorgängen Beteiligten, - 4.
die Beschränkung des Zugangs zu den personenbezogenen Daten innerhalb der verantwortlichen Stelle, - 5.
die von anderen Daten getrennte Verarbeitung, - 6.
die Pseudonymisierung personenbezogener Daten, - 7.
die Verschlüsselung personenbezogener Daten oder - 8.
spezifische Verfahrensregelungen, die im Fall einer Übermittlung oder Verarbeitung für andere Zwecke die Rechtmäßigkeit der Verarbeitung sicherstellen.
|
Ticket collegati
Collegamenti
| Tipo di collegamento |
Ticket |
|
is related to
|
Quarterly |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Technology |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Fraud / Theft / Direct Financial Loss |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
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
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-04.04B |
|
blocks
|
HR-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-19.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-34.02B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-09.01AC |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss |
|
blocks
|
Fraud / Theft / Direct Financial Loss |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
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
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-04.04B |
|
blocks
|
HR-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-19.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-34.02B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-09.01AC |
|
is blocked by
|
IAC-06 Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-02(07) Privileged User Accounts |
|
blocks
|
03.01.01 Account Management |
|
blocks
|
03.01.02 Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
03.01.05 Least Privilege |
|
blocks
|
03.01.06 Least Privilege – Privileged Accounts |
|
blocks
|
03.01.12 Remote Access |
|
blocks
|
03.03.08 Protection of Audit Information |
|
blocks
|
03.04.05 Access Restrictions for Change |
|
blocks
|
03.06.05 Incident Response Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.07.06 Maintenance Personnel |
|
blocks
|
03.01.11E Role-Based Access Control |
|
blocks
|
PR.AA-05 Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of … |
- 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.
|