|
+Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Mitigations |
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) MitigationsDescriptionMechanisms exist to prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by:(1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and (2) Expediting patch deployment actions. Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Subscribe to CISA KEV catalog alerts (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog)∙ Prioritize patching KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA timeframes Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ CISA KEV catalog subscription and monitoring∙ Priority patching for KEV-listed vulnerabilities within CISA-defined windows Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ KEV-integrated vulnerability management program∙ CISA KEV catalog integration with vulnerability scanner ∙ Accelerated remediation SLAs for KEV items Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Enterprise vulnerability management with KEV prioritization∙ Automated KEV alerting and remediation tracking ∙ Defined KEV remediation SLAs Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise KEV management program∙ Automated CISA KEV catalog integration ∙ Real-time KEV exposure tracking and alerting ∙ Risk-based KEV remediation with board-level visibility for material exposures SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallyVulnerability & 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. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel apply software patches through an informal process. Level 2 Planned TrackedVulnerability & 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts. Level 3 Well DefinedVulnerability & 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 prioritize remediation and mitigation of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) by: (1) Reducing or removing public exposure to exploitation; and (2) Expediting patch deployment actions. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledVulnerability & 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 ImprovingVulnerability & 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. ▪ 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
1.1 Nuorodos1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai1.3 Susiję teisės aktai2. Nustatyti reikalavimai
3. Susiję teisės aktai
Susietos užduotys
|