33 straipsnis Prieigos kontrolė

33 straipsnis

Prieigos kontrolė

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:

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;

naudotojų atskaitingumą, kuriuo užtikrinama, kad būtų galima identifikuoti IRT sistemose veiksmus atlikusius naudotojus;

paskyrų administravimo procedūras, pagal kurias suteikiamos, keičiamos ar panaikinamos prieigos prie naudotojų ir beasmenių paskyrų, įskaitant beasmenes administratorių paskyras, teisės;

autentiškumo patvirtinimo metodus, kurie yra proporcingi klasifikacijai pagal 30 straipsnio 1 dalį bei bendram IRT turto rizikos profiliui ir pagrįsti pažangiausia praktika;

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.

1. Apžvalga

Pavadinimas	Reguliavimas

1.1 Nuorodos

1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai

1.3 Susiję standartai

2. Nustatyti reikalavimai

Reikalavimai
Šaltinis	Reikalavimas

3. Susiję standartai

Standartai
Šaltinis	Reikalavimas
SCF	Privileged Functions Logging Description Mechanisms exist to log and review the actions of users and/or services with elevated privileges. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) ∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) ∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) ∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM) ∙ 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. ▪ Generating event logs and the review of those event logs is narrowly-focused to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). 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. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis. ▪ SBC enforce logging to link system access to individual users or service accounts using a non-repudiation capability to protect against an individual falsely denying having performed a particular action. ▪ SBC enforce local security event logging and forward those logs to a centralized log repository to provide an alternate audit capability in the event of a failure in the primary audit capability. 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 log and review the actions of users and/or services with elevated privileges. 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.
SCF	Identity & Access Management (IAM) Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of Identification and Access Management (IAM) controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Strong password policy ∙ MFA for key accounts Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Password manager ∙ MFA on all accounts ∙ Identity policy Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ 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 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). 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 facilitate the implementation of identification and access management controls. 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.
SCF	Account Management Description Mechanisms exist to: (1) Define authorized system account types; (2) Define prohibited system account types; and (3) Proactively govern individual, group, system, service, application, guest and temporary accounts. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory ∙ Microsoft Entra ∙ AWS IAM Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory ∙ Microsoft Entra ∙ AWS IAM Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory ∙ Microsoft Entra ∙ AWS IAM Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory ∙ Microsoft Entra ∙ AWS IAM Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory ∙ Microsoft Entra ∙ AWS IAM 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. 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: (1) Define authorized system account types; (2) Define prohibited system account types; and (3) Proactively govern individual, group, system, service, application, guest and temporary accounts. 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.
SCF	Privileged Account Management (PAM) Description Mechanisms exist to restrict and control privileged access rights for users and Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Strong password policy ∙ MFA for key accounts Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Password manager ∙ MFA on all accounts ∙ Identity policy Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ManageEngine Enterprise Password Management (https://manageengine.com) ∙ Securden (https://securden.com) ∙ CyberArk (https://cyberark.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ManageEngine Enterprise Password Management (https://manageengine.com) ∙ Securden (https://securden.com) ∙ CyberArk (https://cyberark.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ManageEngine Enterprise Password Management (https://manageengine.com) ∙ Securden (https://securden.com) ∙ CyberArk (https://cyberark.com) 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. ▪ IAM restricts the assignment of privileged accounts to entity-defined personnel and/or roles (privilege assignment requires management approval). ▪ LAC and RBAC enforcements limit the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to 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 restrict and control privileged access rights for users and Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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.
SCF	Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges Description Mechanisms exist to periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Annual review of user access rights Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Periodic (at least annual) review of all user account privileges Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal quarterly/annual account privilege review process Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise access certification program with automated review campaigns Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt, IBM Security Verify) ∙ Automated access certification ∙ Continuous access review 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. ▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management. 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 periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary. 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.
SCF	Authenticator Management Description Mechanisms exist to: (1) Securely manage authenticators for users and devices; and (2) Ensure the strength of authentication is appropriate to the classification of the data being accessed. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) 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: (1) Securely manage authenticators for users and devices; and (2) Ensure the strength of authentication is appropriate to the classification of the data being accessed. 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.
SCF	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.
SCF	Access Enforcement Description Mechanisms exist to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC) permissions that conform to the principle of "least privilege." Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) 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. 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 Logical Access Control (LAC) permissions that conform to the principle of "least privilege." 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.
SCF	Least Privilege Description Mechanisms exist to utilize the concept of least privilege, allowing only authorized access to processes necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational business functions. 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 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. 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 utilize the concept of least privilege, allowing only authorized access to processes necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational business functions. 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.
SCF	Identification & Authentication for Organizational Users Description Mechanisms exist to uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) 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). 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 uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users. 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.
SCF	Identification & Authentication for Organizational Users Description Mechanisms exist to uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) 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). 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 uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) organizational users and processes acting on behalf of organizational users. 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.
SCF	Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Description Automated mechanisms exist to enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for: (1) Remote network access; (2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/ or (3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive and/or regulated data. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) 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. ▪ TAAS are configured to use Multi-Fact or Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged and non-privileged 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 automatically enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for: (1) Remote network access; (2) Third-party Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS); and/or (3) Non-console access to critical TAAS that store, transmit and/or process sensitive/regulated data. 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.
SCF	Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Privileged Accounts Description Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged accounts. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) ∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com) ∙ Duo (https://duo.com) 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 utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for privileged accounts. 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.
SCF	Remote Access Description Mechanisms exist to define, control and review organization-approved, secure remote access methods. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ VPN for remote access ∙ Remote access policy Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ VPN with MFA for remote access ∙ Documented remote access policy Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Enterprise VPN with MFA ∙ Remote access policy ∙ Split tunneling controls Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise VPN or ZTNA solution ∙ Remote access monitoring ∙ MFA enforcement Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise ZTNA/SASE platform (e.g., Zscaler, Palo Alto Prisma Access) ∙ VPN with MFA ∙ Remote access monitoring and logging 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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 the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define, control and review organization-approved, secure remote access methods. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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.
SCF	Physical Access Control Description Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access authorizations for all physical access points (including designated entry/exit points) to facilities (excluding those areas within the facility officially designated as publicly accessible). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Physical security policy ∙ Door locks and key management Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Physical security policy ∙ Access log ∙ Visitor procedures Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist) ∙ Physical security guards ∙ Verify individual access authorizations before granting access to the facility. ∙ Control entry to the facility containing the system using physical access devices and/or guards. ∙ Control access to areas officially designated as publicly accessible in accordance with the organization's assessment of risk. ∙ Secure keys, combinations and other physical access devices. Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist) ∙ Physical security guards ∙ Verify individual access authorizations before granting access to the facility. ∙ Control entry to the facility containing the system using physical access devices and/or guards. ∙ Control access to areas officially designated as publicly accessible in accordance with the organization's assessment of risk. ∙ Secure keys, combinations and other physical access devices. Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist) ∙ Physical security guards ∙ Verify individual access authorizations before granting access to the facility. ∙ Control entry to the facility containing the system using physical access devices and/or guards. ∙ Control access to areas officially designated as publicly accessible in accordance with the organization's assessment of risk. ∙ Secure keys, combinations and other physical access devices. 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 Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Physical security controls and technologies ensure that only authorized personnel are allowed access to secure areas. ▪ A facilities maintenance team, or similar function, manages the operation of automated physical and environmental protection controls. ▪ Physical security controls and technologies are configured to enforce physical access authorizations for all physical access points (including designated entry/exit points) to facilities (excluding those areas within the facility officially designated as publicly accessible). Level 3 Well Defined Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access). ▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to enforce physical access authorizations for all physical access points (including designated entry/exit points) to facilities (excluding those areas within the facility officially designated as publicly accessible). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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.

Builddate: 25.06.2024 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32024R1774
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

33 straipsnis Prieigos kontrolė

1. Apžvalga

1.1 Nuorodos

1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai

1.3 Susiję standartai

2. Nustatyti reikalavimai

3. Susiję standartai

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2