+Restrictions on Shared Groups / Accounts
---+Group Authentication
|
Restrictions on Shared Groups / Accounts
Description
Mechanisms exist to authorize the use of shared/group accounts only under certain organization-defined conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Avoid shared accounts; use individual accounts where possible
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy restricting shared account usage
∙ Individual accountability required
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal shared account policy
∙ Technical controls limiting shared account use
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ PAM for shared account management with individual accountability (e.g., CyberArk)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PAM platform (e.g., CyberArk, BeyondTrust)
∙ Shared account vaulting with individual checkout
∙ Full session recording
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.
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.
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 authorize the use of shared/group accounts only under certain organization-defined conditions.
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. Apžvalga
| Pavadinimas |
Standartas |
|
Group Authentication
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to require individuals to be authenticated with an individual authenticator when a group authenticator is utilized.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
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
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 proactively governs account management of individual, group, system, application, guest and temporary accounts.
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 require individuals to be authenticated with an individual authenticator when a group authenticator is utilized.
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
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
|
9 straipsnis 4
4. Pagal 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodytą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą finansų sektoriaus subjektai:
|
a)
|
parengia ir dokumentais pagrindžia informacijos saugumo politiką, kurioje apibrėžiamos taisyklės, kaip apsaugoti duomenų, informacinio turto ir IRT turto, įskaitant, kai taikytina, jų klientų duomenų, informacinio turto ir IRT turto prieinamumą, autentiškumą, vientisumą ir konfidencialumą;
|
|
b)
|
taikydami rizika grindžiamą požiūrį, nustato patikimą tinklų ir infrastruktūros valdymo struktūrą, naudodamiesi tinkamais būdais, metodais ir protokolais; tai gali apimti automatizuotų mechanizmų paveiktam informaciniam turtui izoliuoti kibernetinių išpuolių atveju įgyvendinimą;
|
|
c)
|
įgyvendina politikos priemones, kuriomis fizinė ar loginė prieiga prie informacinio turto ir IRT turto apribojama tuo, kas reikalinga tik teisėtoms ir patvirtintoms funkcijoms ir veiklai, ir tuo tikslu parengia politikos priemonių, procedūrų ir kontrolės priemonių rinkinį dėl prieigos teisių ir patikimo jų administravimo;
|
|
d)
|
įgyvendina griežtų tapatumo nustatymo mechanizmų politikos priemones ir protokolus, pagrįstus atitinkamais standartais, specialiomis kontrolės sistemomis ir apsaugos priemonėmis dėl kriptografinių raktų, kuriais duomenys užšifruojami remiantis patvirtintų duomenų klasifikavimo ir IRT rizikos vertinimo procesų rezultatais;
|
|
e)
|
įgyvendina dokumentais pagrįstą IRT pakeitimų, įskaitant programinės įrangos, aparatinės įrangos, aparatinės programinės įrangos komponentų, sistemos ar saugumo nustatymus, valdymo politiką, procedūras ir kontrolės priemones, grindžiamas rizikos vertinimo požiūriu ir sudarančias neatsiejamą finansų sektoriaus subjekto bendro pakeitimų valdymo proceso dalį, siekiant užtikrinti, kad visi IRT sistemų pakeitimai būtų registruojami, testuojami, vertinami, tvirtinami, įgyvendinami ir tikrinami kontroliuojamu būdu;
|
|
f)
|
turi turėti tinkamą ir išsamią dokumentais pagrįstą pataisų ir atnaujinimų politiką.
|
Pirmos pastraipos b punkto tikslais finansų sektoriaus subjektai tinklų ryšio infrastruktūrą kuria taip, kad būtų galimybė ją skubiai atjungti ar segmentuoti, siekiant kuo labiau sumažinti plintantį neigiamą poveikį ir užkirsti jam kelią, ypač tarpusavyje susijusių finansinių procesų atveju.
Pirmos pastraipos e punkto tikslais IRT pakeitimų valdymo procesas tvirtinamas atitinkamų tiesioginių vadovų ir nustatomi konkretūs protokolai.
|
|
EULAW
|
21 straipsnis Prieigos kontrolė
21 straipsnis
Finansų sektoriaus subjektai parengia, dokumentuoja, įgyvendina ir į prieigos valdymo teisių kontrolę įtraukia politiką, apimančią visus šiuos elementus:
a)
prieigos prie IRT turto, įskaitant nuotolinę ir neatidėliotiną prieigą, teisių priskyrimą remiantis būtinybės žinoti, būtinybės naudoti ir minimaliosios prieigos teisės principais;
b)
pareigų atskyrimą, kuriuo užkertamas kelias neteisėtai prieigai prie ypatingos svarbos duomenų arba kelių prieigos teisių priskyrimui, galinčiam sudaryti sąlygas apeiti kontrolės priemones;
c)
nuostatą dėl naudotojų atskaitingumo, kuria kuo labiau ribojamas beasmenių ir bendrųjų paskyrų naudojimas ir užtikrinama, kad visada būtų galima identifikuoti IRT sistemose veiksmus atlikusius naudotojus;
d)
nuostatą dėl prieigos prie IRT turto apribojimų, kuria nustatomos kontrolės ir kitos priemonės, kuriomis užkertamas kelias neteisėtai prieigai;
e)
paskyrų administravimo procedūras, pagal kurias suteikiamos, keičiamos ar panaikinamos prieigos prie naudotojų ir beasmenių paskyrų, įskaitant beasmenes administratorių paskyras, teisės, įskaitant nuostatas dėl visų šių elementų:
i)
vaidmenų ir pareigų, susijusių su prieigos teisių suteikimu, peržiūra ir panaikinimu, priskyrimo;
ii)
privilegijuotos, neatidėliotinos ir administratoriaus prieigos prie visų IRT sistemų priskyrimo remiantis būtinybe naudoti arba ad hoc pagrindu;
iii)
neatidėliotino prieigos teisių panaikinimo nutraukus darbo santykius arba tais atvejais, kai prieiga nebebūtina;
iv)
prieigos teisių atnaujinimo, kai būtini pakeitimai ir bent kartą per metus visų IRT sistemų, išskyrus IRT sistemas, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, atveju ir bent kas šešis mėnesius IRT sistemų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, atveju;
f)
autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodus, įskaitant:
i)
autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodų, kurie yra proporcingi klasifikacijai pagal Reglamento (ES) 2022/2554 8 straipsnio 1 dalį ir bendram IRT turto rizikos profiliui ir kuriais atsižvelgiama į pažangiausią praktiką, taikymą;
ii)
saugesnio autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodų pagal pažangiausią praktiką ir metodus taikymą nuotolinei prieigai prie finansų sektoriaus subjekto tinklo, privilegijuotai prieigai, prieigai prie IRT turto, kuriuo palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, ar viešai prieinamo IRT turto;
g)
fizinės prieigos kontrolės priemones, įskaitant:
i)
fizinių asmenų, turinčių leidimą patekti į finansų sektoriaus subjekto įvardytas patalpas, duomenų centrus ir jautrias specialias zonas, kuriose yra laikomas IRT ir informacinis turtas, tapatybės nustatymą ir registravimą;
ii)
fizinės prieigos prie ypatingos svarbos IRT turto teisių suteikimą tik įgaliotiems asmenims remiantis būtinybės žinoti ir minimaliosios prieigos teisės principais, taip pat ad hoc pagrindu;
iii)
fizinės prieigos prie finansų sektoriaus subjekto įvardytų patalpų, duomenų centrų ir jautrių specialių zonų, kuriose yra laikomas IRT ir (arba) informacinis turtas, stebėseną;
iv)
fizinės prieigos teisių peržiūrą siekiant užtikrinti, kad nebūtinos prieigos teisės būtų nedelsiant panaikintos.
Taikydami e punkto i papunktį, finansų sektoriaus subjektai nustato saugojimo laikotarpį atsižvelgdami į veiklos ir informacijos saugumo tikslus, įvykio registravimo registracijos žurnaluose priežastis ir IRT rizikos vertinimo rezultatus.
Taikydami e punkto ii papunktį, kai įmanoma, finansų sektoriaus subjektai naudoja specialias paskyras administracinėms užduotims, susijusioms su IRT sistemomis, atlikti. Tais atvejais, kai įmanoma ir tinkama, finansų sektoriaus subjektai diegia automatinius privilegijuotos prieigos valdymo sprendimus.
Taikant g punkto i papunktį, tapatybės nustatymas ir registravimas turėtų būti proporcingi patalpų, duomenų centrų bei jautrių specialių zonų svarbumui ir juose vykdomų operacijų ar esančių IRT sistemų ypatingai svarbai.
Taikant g punkto iii papunktį, stebėsena turėtų būti proporcinga klasifikacijai pagal Reglamento (ES) 2022/2554 8 straipsnio 1 dalį ir zonos, į kurią patenkama, ypatingai svarbai.
|
|
EULAW
|
33 straipsnis Prieigos kontrolė
33 straipsnis
Reglamento (ES) 2022/2554 16 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodyti finansų sektoriaus subjektai parengia, dokumentuoja ir įgyvendina loginės ir fizinės prieigos kontrolės procedūras, užtikrina jų vykdymą bei jas periodiškai peržiūri. Tos procedūros apima šiuos loginės ir fizinės prieigos kontrolės elementus:
a)
prieigos prie finansų sektoriaus subjekto informacinio turto, IRT turto ir juo palaikomų funkcijų, taip pat prie ypatingos svarbos operacijų vietų teisės, įskaitant nuotolinę ir neatidėliotiną prieigą, yra administruojamos remiantis būtinybės žinoti, būtinybės naudoti ir minimaliosios prieigos teisės principais;
b)
naudotojų atskaitingumą, kuriuo užtikrinama, kad būtų galima identifikuoti IRT sistemose veiksmus atlikusius naudotojus;
c)
paskyrų administravimo procedūras, pagal kurias suteikiamos, keičiamos ar panaikinamos prieigos prie naudotojų ir beasmenių paskyrų, įskaitant beasmenes administratorių paskyras, teisės;
d)
autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodus, kurie yra proporcingi klasifikacijai pagal 30 straipsnio 1 dalį bei bendram IRT turto rizikos profiliui ir pagrįsti pažangiausia praktika;
e)
prieigos teisių periodišką peržiūrą ir panaikinimą, kai jos nebebūtinos.
Taikydamas c punktą, finansų sektoriaus subjektas priskiria privilegijuotą, neatidėliotiną ir administratoriaus prieigą prie visų IRT sistemų remdamasis būtinybe naudoti arba ad hoc pagrindu ir prieigą registruoja pagal 34 straipsnio pirmos pastraipos f punktą.
Taikydami d punktą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai taiko saugesnio autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodus, grindžiamus pažangiausia praktika, nuotolinei prieigai prie finansų sektoriaus subjekto tinklo, privilegijuotai prieigai ir prieigai prie viešai prieinamo IRT turto, kuriuo palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos.
|
Susietos užduotys
- 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.
|