+Anomalous Behavior
---+Unusual Transactions
|
Anomalous Behavior
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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 security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
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. Apžvalga
| Pavadinimas |
Standartas |
|
Unusual Transactions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) hostile and/or fraudulent actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)).
▪ 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 MON 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 security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish organization-defined "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) fraudulent actions.
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.
|
1.1 Nuorodos
1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai
1.3 Susiję teisės aktai
2. Nustatyti reikalavimai
Reikalavimai
| Šaltinis |
Reikalavimas |
3. Susiję teisės aktai
Teisės aktai
| Šaltinis |
Reguliavimas |
|
EULAW
|
10 straipsnis 1
1. Pagal 17 straipsnį finansų sektoriaus subjektai turi būti įdiegę mechanizmus, skirtus neįprastai veiklai, įskaitant IRT tinklo veikimo problemas ir su IRT susijusius incidentus, skubiai aptikti ir galimiems reikšmingiems bendriems gedimo taškams nustatyti.
Visi pirmoje pastraipoje nurodyti aptikimo mechanizmai reguliariai testuojami pagal 25 straipsnį.
|
|
EULAW
|
22 straipsnis Su IRT susijusių incidentų valdymo politika
22 straipsnis
Su IRT susijusių incidentų valdymo politika
Finansų sektoriaus subjektai parengia, dokumentuoja, įgyvendina ir į mechanizmus, kuriais aptinkama neįprasta veikla, be kita ko IRT tinklo veikimo problemos ir su IRT susiję incidentai, įtraukia su IRT susijusių incidentų valdymo politiką, kuria jie:
a)
dokumentuoja su IRT susijusių incidentų valdymo procesą, nurodytą Reglamento (ES) 2022/2554 17 straipsnyje;
b)
sudaro sąrašą svarbių kontaktų su vidaus funkcijas atliekančiais darbuotojais ir išorės suinteresuotaisiais subjektais, tiesiogiai dalyvaujančiais IRT operacijų saugumo veikloje, be kita ko, susijusioje su:
i)
kibernetinių grėsmių aptikimu ir stebėsena;
ii)
neįprastos veiklos aptikimu;
c)
nustato, įgyvendina ir valdo techninius, organizacinius ir operacinius mechanizmus, palaikančius su IRT susijusių incidentų valdymo procesą, įskaitant mechanizmus, leidžiančius nedelsiant aptikti neįprastą veiklą ir elgesį pagal šio reglamento 23 straipsnį;
▼C1
d)
saugo visus su IRT susijusiais incidentais susijusius įrodymus laikotarpį, kuris yra ne ilgesnis, nei reikia tais tikslais, kuriais renkami duomenys, ir proporcingas paveiktų veiklos funkcijų, palaikymo procesų ir IRT bei informacinio turto ypatingai svarbai, pagal Komisijos deleguotojo reglamento (ES) 2024/1772 (
2
) 8 straipsnio 2 dalį ir visus taikytinus saugojimo reikalavimus pagal Sąjungos teisę;
▼B
e)
nustato ir įgyvendina mechanizmus, kuriais analizuojami reikšmingi ar pasikartojantys su IRT susiję incidentai ir su IRT susijusių incidentų skaičiaus ir vyksmo modeliai.
Taikydami d punktą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai saugo tame punkte nurodytus įrodymus saugiu būdu.
|
|
EULAW
|
23 straipsnis Neįprastos veiklos aptikimas ir su IRT susijusių incidentų aptikimo ir reagavimo į juos kriterijai
-
|
|
EULAW
|
23 straipsnis Neįprastos veiklos aptikimas ir su IRT susijusių incidentų aptikimo ir reagavimo į juos kriterijai
-
|
|
EULAW
|
34 straipsnis IRT operacijų saugumas
34 straipsnis
Reglamento (ES) 2022/2554 16 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodyti finansų sektoriaus subjektai, įgyvendindami savo sistemas, protokolus ir priemones, susijusius su visu IRT turtu:
a)
stebi ir valdo viso IRT turto gyvavimo ciklą;
b)
stebi, ar atitinkamais atvejais IRT turtą palaiko finansų sektoriaus subjektams IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalys;
c)
nustato savo IRT turto pajėgumo reikalavimus ir priemones, kuriomis išlaikomas ir gerinamas IRT sistemų prieinamumas bei veiksmingumas ir užkertamas kelias IRT pajėgumo trūkumams prieš jiems atsirandant;
d)
atlieka automatinį IRT turto pažeidžiamumų skenavimą ir vertinimą, proporcingą klasifikacijai pagal šio reglamento 30 straipsnio 1 dalį ir bendram IRT turto rizikos profiliui, ir diegia pataisas, kuriomis šalinami identifikuoti pažeidžiamumai;
e)
valdo riziką, susijusią su pasenusiu, nebepalaikomu ar senuoju IRT turtu;
f)
registruoja įvykius, susijusius su loginės ir fizinės prieigos kontrole, IRT operacijomis, įskaitant sistemos ir tinklo srauto veiklą, ir IRT pakeitimų valdymu;
g)
nustato ir įgyvendina priemones, kuriomis stebima ir analizuojama informacija apie neįprastą veiklą ir elgesį, susijusius su ypatingos svarbos arba svarbiomis IRT operacijomis;
h)
įgyvendina priemones, kuriomis stebima aktuali ir naujausia informacija apie kibernetines grėsmes;
i)
įgyvendina priemones, kuriomis nustatomas galimas informacijos nutekinimas, kenkėjiški kodai ir kitos grėsmės saugumui, taip pat viešai žinomi programinės ir aparatinės įrangos pažeidžiamumai, ir tikrinama, ar yra atitinkamų naujų saugumo naujinių.
Taikydami f punktą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai suderina registracijos žurnalų išsamumo lygį su jų paskirtimi ir IRT turto, pildančio tuos žurnalus, naudojimu.
|
|
EULAW
|
10 straipsnis Aptikimas
-
|
Susietos užduotys
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|