+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Incident Response Training
Description
Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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. Apžvalga
| Pavadinimas |
Standartas |
|
Simulated Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
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.
|
|
Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-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 Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
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
|
14 straipsnis 1
1. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai, įgyvendindami 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodytą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, nustato krizių komunikacijos planus, pagal kuriuos būtų galima atsakingai atskleisti informaciją apie bent didelius su IRT susijusius incidentus arba pažeidžiamumus atitinkamai klientams ir partneriams, taip pat visuomenei.
|
|
EULAW
|
14 straipsnis 2
2. Kaip IRT rizikos valdymo sistemos dalį, finansų sektoriaus subjektai įgyvendina komunikacijos politiką, skirtą vidaus darbuotojams ir išorės suinteresuotiesiems subjektams. Darbuotojams skirtoje komunikacijos politikoje atsižvelgiama į poreikį atskirti IRT rizikos valdymo srities darbuotojus, visų pirma, atsakingus už reagavimą ir veiklos atkūrimą, ir darbuotojus, kurie turi būti informuoti.
|
|
EULAW
|
14 straipsnis 3
3. Bent vienam finansų sektoriaus subjekto darbuotojui pavedama įgyvendinti su IRT susijusių incidentų komunikacijos strategiją ir tuo tikslu vykdyti atstovo ryšiams su visuomene ir žiniasklaida funkciją.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 straipsnis 1
1. Pagal šio straipsnio 4 dalį finansų sektoriaus subjektai praneša apie didelius su IRT susijusius incidentus atitinkamai kompetentingai institucijai, kaip nurodyta 46 straipsnyje.
Kai finansų sektoriaus subjektą prižiūri daugiau nei viena nacionalinė kompetentinga institucija, nurodyta 46 straipsnyje, valstybės narės paskiria vieną bendrą kompetentingą instituciją atitinkama kompetentinga institucija, atsakinga už šiame straipsnyje numatytų funkcijų ir pareigų vykdymą.
Kredito įstaigos, pagal Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1024/2013 6 straipsnio 4 dalį klasifikuojamos kaip svarbios, apie didelius su IRT susijusius incidentus praneša atitinkamai nacionalinei kompetentingai institucijai, paskirtai pagal Direktyvos 2013/36/ES 4 straipsnį, o pastaroji nedelsdama perduoda tą pranešimą ECB.
Taikant pirmą pastraipą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, surinkę ir išanalizavę visą susijusią informaciją, parengia pradinį pranešimą ir pranešimus, nurodytus šio straipsnio 4 dalyje, naudodami 20 straipsnyje nurodytus šablonus ir pateikia juos kompetentingai institucijai. Tuo atveju, kai dėl techninių priežasčių negalima pateikti pradinio pranešimo naudojant šabloną, finansų sektoriaus subjektai pateikia pranešimą kompetentingai institucijai alternatyviomis priemonėmis.
Pradiniame pranešime ir pranešimuose, nurodytuose 4 dalyje, pateikiama visa informacija, būtina kompetentingai institucijai, kad ji galėtų nustatyti didelio su IRT susijusio incidento reikšmingumą ir įvertinti galimą tarpvalstybinį poveikį.
Nedarant poveikio finansų sektoriaus subjekto vykdomam pranešimų atitinkamai kompetentingai institucijai teikimui pagal pirmą pastraipą, valstybės narės gali papildomai nustatyti, kad kai kurie ar visi finansų sektoriaus subjektai taip pat teikia pradinį pranešimą ir kiekvieną šio straipsnio 4 dalyje nurodytą pranešimą naudodami 20 straipsnyje nurodytus šablonus, nacionalinėms kompetentingoms institucijoms arba reagavimo į kompiuterių saugumo incidentus tarnyboms (CSIRT), paskirtoms arba įsteigtoms pagal Direktyvą (ES) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 straipsnis 2
2. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai gali savanoriškai pranešti atitinkamai kompetentingai institucijai apie dideles kibernetines grėsmes, jeigu jie mano, kad grėsmė yra svarbi finansų sistemai, paslaugų naudotojams ar klientams. Atitinkama kompetentinga institucija gali pateikti tokią informaciją kitoms atitinkamoms institucijoms, nurodytoms 6 dalyje.
Kredito įstaigos, pagal Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1024/2013 6 straipsnio 4 dalį klasifikuojamos kaip svarbios, gali savanoriškai pranešti apie dideles kibernetines grėsmes atitinkamai nacionalinei kompetentingai institucijai, paskirtai pagal Direktyvos 2013/36/ES 4 straipsnį, o pastaroji nedelsdama perduoda tą pranešimą ECB.
Valstybės narės gali nustatyti, kad tie finansų sektoriaus subjektai, kurie savanoriškai pateikia pranešimą pagal pirmą pastraipą, taip pat gali perduoti tą pranešimą CSIRT, paskirtoms arba įsteigtoms pagal Direktyvą (ES) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 straipsnis 3
3. Kai įvyksta didelis su IRT susijęs incidentas ir jis daro poveikį klientų finansiniams interesams, finansų sektoriaus subjektai nepagrįstai nedelsdami, iš karto, kai sužino apie šį incidentą, informuoja savo klientus apie didelį su IRT susijusį incidentą ir apie priemones, kurių imtasi tokio incidento neigiamam poveikiui sumažinti.
Didelės kibernetinės grėsmės atveju finansų sektoriaus subjektai, kai taikytina, informuoja savo klientus, kuriems gali būti padarytas poveikis, apie visas tinkamas apsaugos priemones, kurių pastarieji, apsvarstę, galėtų imtis.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 straipsnis 4
4. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai, laikydamiesi laiko terminų, kurie turi būti nustatyti pagal 20 straipsnio pirmos pastraipos a punkto ii papunktį, atitinkamai kompetentingai institucijai pateikia:
|
b)
|
tarpinį pranešimą, pateikiamą po a punkte nurodyto pradinio pranešimo, kai tik pirminio incidento padėtis reikšmingai pasikeičia arba, remiantis nauja turima informacija, pasikeičia didelio su IRT susijusio incidento šalinimo būdai, vėliau atitinkamai teikiant atnaujintus pranešimus kiekvieną kartą, kai esama naujos informacijos apie padėtį, taip pat gavus konkretų kompetentingos institucijos prašymą;
|
|
c)
|
galutinį pranešimą, kai užbaigiama pagrindinės priežasties analizė, neatsižvelgiant į tai, ar poveikio mažinimo priemonės jau įgyvendintos, ir kai esama faktinių poveikio duomenų, kuriais galima pakeisti įverčius.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
19 straipsnis 5
5. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai gali, laikydamiesi Sąjungos ir nacionalinės sektorių teisės, paslaugas teikiančiai trečiajai šaliai perduoti pareigas pranešti pagal šį straipsnį. Tokio perdavimo atveju finansų sektoriaus subjektas išlieka visiškai atsakingas už reikalavimų pranešti apie incidentus vykdymą.
|
|
EULAW
|
45 straipsnis 3
3. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai praneša kompetentingoms institucijoms apie savo dalyvavimą 1 dalyje nurodytose dalijimosi informacija schemose, kai jų narystė patvirtinama arba, jei taikytina, nutraukiama, kai tas nutraukimas įsigalioja.
|
|
EULAW
|
34 straipsnis Pranešimas duomenų subjektui apie asmens duomenų saugumo pažeidimą
-
|
|
EULAW
|
23 straipsnis Pareigos pranešti
-
|
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.
|