+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Replay-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Phishing-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Privileged Accounts
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Non-Privileged Accounts
---+Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Local Access to Privileged Accounts
|
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.
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Standarts |
|
Replay-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce replay-resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) through authenticators whose outputs cannot be reused, using:
(1) Nonces;
(2) One-time challenges;
(3) Time-synchronous values; and/or
(4) Channel binding.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Authenticator app TOTP (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Google Authenticator) rather than SMS where possible
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Authenticator app or push MFA (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Duo)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
∙ FIDO2 security keys for administrators (e.g., Yubico)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Conditional access policies enforcing replay-resistant methods
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise identity platform with authentication strength policies (e.g., Microsoft Entra, Okta, Ping Identity)
∙ FIDO2 / passkeys for workforce
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Legacy authentication protocols blocked
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.
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).
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.
|
|
Phishing-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to enforce phishing-resistant Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) through authenticators that are cryptographically bound to the verifier's identity, preventing credential relay by an impersonating party.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Passkeys or security keys for administrator accounts (e.g., Yubico, Microsoft Entra passkeys)
∙ Number matching enabled on push MFA
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ FIDO2 security keys for administrators (e.g., Yubico)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) authentication strength policies
∙ Number matching on push MFA
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Okta (https://okta.com)
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Phishing-resistant MFA required for privileged roles via conditional access
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise identity platform with phishing-resistant authentication strengths (e.g., Microsoft Entra, Okta, Ping Identity)
∙ FIDO2 / passkeys or PIV smart cards for privileged users
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise phishing-resistant MFA program (FIDO2/passkeys, PIV/CAC)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) / Okta (https://okta.com) with authentication strength enforcement
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Legacy and phishable factors disabled
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.
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).
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.
|
|
Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement Out-of-Band (OOB) Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for access to privileged and non-privileged accounts such that one of the factors is independently provided by a device separate from the system being accessed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Yubico (https://yubico.com)
∙ Duo (https://duo.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ 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
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 implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for access to privileged and non-privileged accounts such that one of the factors is independently provided by a device separate from the system 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
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.
|
|
Alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enable alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) tokens when the primary MFA solution is not able to be used.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document alternative MFA options (e.g., backup codes)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy for alternative MFA methods when primary MFA is unavailable
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal alternative MFA policy
∙ Approved alternative authentication methods
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise IAM with multiple MFA options
∙ Fallback authentication procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IAM platform (e.g., Okta, Microsoft Entra)
∙ Multiple MFA options
∙ Fallback authentication workflows
∙ Recovery procedures
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 enable alternative Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) tokens when the primary MFA solution is not able to be used.
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Network Access to Non-Privileged Accounts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate network access for non-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 non-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.
|
|
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) For Local Access to Privileged Accounts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate local 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
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 Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to authenticate local 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.
|
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie tiesību akti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie tiesību akti
Tiesību akti
| Avots |
Regulējums |
|
EULAW
|
21. pants Piekļuves kontrole
21. pants
Kā daļu no savas piekļuves pārvaldības tiesību kontroles finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno politiku, kas ietver visus no šiem elementiem:
a)
IKT piekļuves tiesību piešķiršana, pamatojoties uz principiem “vajadzība zināt”, “vajadzība izmantot” un mazāko tiesību principu, arī attiecībā uz attālu piekļuvi un piekļuvi ārkārtas gadījumā;
b)
uzdevumu nošķiršana, lai novērstu nepamatotu piekļuvi kritiski svarīgiem datiem vai novērstu tādu piekļuves tiesību kombināciju piešķiršanu, ko var izmantot kontroļu apiešanai;
c)
noteikums par lietotāja pārskatatbildību, ciktāl iespējams, ierobežojot vispārējo un dalīto lietotāja kontu izmantošanu un nodrošinot, ka lietotāji vienmēr ir identificējami attiecībā uz darbībām, kas veiktas IKT sistēmās;
d)
noteikums par ierobežojumiem piekļuvei IKT aktīviem, izklāstot kontroles un rīkus neatļautas piekļuves novēršanai;
e)
kontu pārvaldības procedūras, lai piešķirtu, mainītu vai atsauktu piekļuves tiesības lietotāju un vispārējiem kontiem, tajā skaitā vispārējiem administratoru kontiem, ietverot noteikumu par visu turpmāk minēto:
i)
uzdevumu un atbildības piešķiršana par piekļuves tiesību piešķiršanu, pārskatīšanu un atsaukšanu;
ii)
privileģētas, ārkārtas un administratora piekļuves piešķiršana, pamatojoties uz vajadzību zināt vai uz ad hoc pamata, attiecībā uz visām IKT sistēmām;
iii)
piekļuves tiesību tūlītēja atsaukšana darba attiecību izbeigšanas gadījumā vai ja piekļuve vairs nav nepieciešama;
iv)
piekļuves tiesību atjaunināšana, kad ir nepieciešamas izmaiņas un vismaz gadā attiecībā uz visām IKT sistēmām, izņemot IKT sistēmas, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas, un vismaz reizi sešos mēnešos attiecībā uz IKT sistēmām, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas;
f)
autentifikācijas metodes, ietverot visus šos elementus:
i)
autentifikācijas metožu izmantošana, kas ir samērīga ar klasifikāciju, kura noteikta saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 8. panta 1. punktu, un ar IKT aktīvu vispārējo riska profilu, arī ņemot vērā paraugpraksi;
ii)
spēcīgu autentifikācijas metožu izmantošana saskaņā ar paraugpraksi un metodēm attiecībā uz attālu piekļuvi finanšu vienības tīklam, privileģētu piekļuvi, piekļuvi IKT aktīviem, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas, vai IKT aktīviem, kas ir publiski pieejami;
g)
fiziskās piekļuves kontroles pasākumi, tajā skaitā:
i)
to fizisko personu identifikācija un reģistrēšana žurnālā, kurām ir atļauts piekļūt telpām, datu centriem un finanšu vienības par sensitīvām noteiktām vietām, kur atrodas IKT un informācijas aktīvi;
ii)
fiziskās piekļuves kritiskiem IKT aktīviem piešķiršana tikai pilnvarotām personām saskaņā ar principu “vajadzība zināt” un mazāko tiesību principu un uz ad hoc pamata;
iii)
uzraudzība attiecībā uz fizisko piekļuvi telpām, datu centriem un finanšu vienības par sensitīvām noteiktām vietām, kur atrodas IKT un informācijas aktīvi, vai abi;
iv)
fiziskās piekļuves tiesību pārskatīšana, lai nodrošinātu, ka nevajadzīgas piekļuves tiesības tiek steidzīgi atsauktas.
Šā punkta e) apakšpunkta i) punkta nolūkos finanšu vienības nosaka glabāšanas periodu, ņemot vērā darbības un informācijas drošības mērķus, iemeslus, kādēļ notikums tiek reģistrēts žurnālos, un IKT riska novērtējuma rezultātus.
Šā punkta e) apakšpunkta ii) punkta nolūkos finanšu vienības, ja iespējams, izmanto speciālus kontus administratīvu uzdevumu veikšanai IKT sistēmās. Ja tas ir iespējams un atbilstoši, finanšu vienības ievieš automatizētus risinājumus privileģētas piekļuves pārvaldībai.
Šā punkta g) apakšpunkta i) punkta nolūkos identifikācija un reģistrēšana žurnālos ir samērīga ar telpu, datu centru, par sensitīvām noteikto vietu svarīgumu un tajās notiekošo darbību vai esošo IKT sistēmu kritiskumu.
Šā punkta g) apakšpunkta iii) punkta nolūkos uzraudzība ir samērīga ar klasifikāciju, kas noteikta saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 8. panta 1. punktu, un vietas, kurai piekļūst, kritiskumu.
|
|
EULAW
|
33. pants Piekļuves kontrole
33. pants
Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 16. panta 1. punktā minētās finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno procedūras loģiskās un fiziskās piekļuves kontrolei un īsteno, uzrauga un periodiski pārskata šīs procedūras. Minētās procedūras ietver šādus loģiskās un fiziskās piekļuves kontroles elementus:
a)
tiesības attiecībā uz piekļuvi informācijas aktīviem, IKT aktīviem un to atbalstītajām funkcijām, un finanšu vienības darbības kritiskajām vietām tiek pārvaldītas saskaņā ar principiem “vajadzība zināt”, “vajadzība izmantot” un mazāko tiesību principu, arī attiecībā uz attālu un ārkārtas piekļuvi;
b)
lietotāju pārskatatbildība, kas nodrošina, ka lietotājus var identificēt attiecībā uz IKT sistēmās veiktajām darbībām;
c)
kontu pārvaldības procedūras, lai piešķirtu, mainītu vai atsauktu piekļuves tiesības lietotāju un vispārējiem kontiem, tajā skaitā vispārējiem administratoru kontiem;
d)
autentifikācijas metodes, kas ir samērīgas ar 30. panta 1. punktā minēto klasifikāciju un IKT aktīvu vispārējo riska profilu un ir balstītas uz paraugpraksi;
e)
piekļuves tiesības tiek periodiski pārskatītas un atsauktas, kad tās vairs nav vajadzīgas.
Šā punkta c) apakšpunkta nolūkos finanšu vienība piešķir privileģētu, ārkārtas un administratora piekļuvi pēc principa “vajadzība izmantot” vai uz ad hoc pamata attiecībā uz visām IKT sistēmām, un to reģistrē žurnālā saskaņā ar 34. panta pirmās daļas f) punktu.
Šā punkta d) apakšpunkta nolūkos finanšu vienības izmanto stingras, uz paraugpraksi balstītas autentifikācijas metodes attiecībā uz attālu piekļuvi finanšu vienību tīklam, privileģētu piekļuvi un piekļuvi IKT aktīviem, kas atbalsta kritiski svarīgas vai svarīgas funkcijas, kuras ir publiski pieejamas.
|
|
EULAW
|
21. pants Kiberdrošības risku pārvaldības pasākumi
-
|
Saistītie uzdevumi
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|