+Anomalous Behavior
---+Unusual Transactions
|
Anomalous Behavior
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ 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.
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.
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 utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Standarts |
|
Unusual Transactions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) hostile and/or fraudulent actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Fraud (IoF) (e.g., fraud "red flags")
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
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 establish organization-defined "normal business activities" to identify anomalous transaction activities that can reduce the opportunity for sending (outbound) and/or receiving (inbound) fraudulent actions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie tiesību akti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie tiesību akti
Tiesību akti
| Avots |
Regulējums |
|
EULAW
|
Article 10 1
1. Financial entities shall have in place mechanisms to promptly detect anomalous activities, in accordance with Article 17, including ICT network performance issues and ICT-related incidents, and to identify potential material single points of failure.
All detection mechanisms referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regularly tested in accordance with Article 25.
|
|
EULAW
|
22. pants Ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības politika
22. pants
Ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības politika
Kā daļu no mehānismiem, kurus izmanto anomālu darbību atklāšanai, ieskaitot IKT tīklu veiktspējas problēmas un ar IKT saistītus incidentus, finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno ar IKT saistītu incidentu politiku, ar kuras starpniecību tās:
a)
dokumentē ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības procesu, kas minēts Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 17. pantā;
b)
izveido sarakstu, kurā iekļautas attiecīgās kontaktpersonas ar iekšējām funkcijām un ārējās ieinteresētās personas, kas tieši iesaistītas IKT darbības drošībā, arī attiecībā uz:
i)
kiberdraudu atklāšanu un uzraudzību;
ii)
anomālu darbību atklāšanu;
iii)
ievainojamības pārvaldību;
c)
nosaka, īsteno un izmanto tehniskos, organizatoriskos un darbības mehānismus, lai atbalstītu ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības procesu, tajā skaitā mehānismus, kas ļauj ātri atklāt anomālas darbības un uzvedību saskaņā ar šīs regulas 23. pantu;
▼C1
d)
glabā visus pierādījumus par incidentiem, kas saistīti ar IKT, ne ilgāk kā nepieciešams nolūkiem, kuriem dati savākti, samērīgi ar ietekmēto darbības funkciju, atbalsta procesu un IKT un informācijas aktīvu kritiskumu un saskaņā ar Komisijas Deleģētās regulas (ES) 2024/1772 (
2
) 8. panta 2. punktu un ar jebkuru piemērojamo datu glabāšanas prasību atbilstīgi Savienības tiesību aktiem;
▼B
e)
nosaka un īsteno mehānismus, lai analizētu būtiskus vai atkārtotus ar IKT saistītus incidentus un tendences ar IKT saistītu incidentu skaita un atkārtošanās ziņā.
Šā panta d) punkta nolūkos finanšu vienības minētajā punktā norādītos pierādījumus glabā drošā veidā.
|
|
EULAW
|
23. pants Anomālu darbību atklāšana un kritēriji ar IKT saistītu incidentu atklāšanai un reaģēšanai uz tiem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
23. pants Anomālu darbību atklāšana un kritēriji ar IKT saistītu incidentu atklāšanai un reaģēšanai uz tiem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
34. pants IKT darbību drošība
34. pants
Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 16. panta 1. punktā minētās finanšu vienības savu sistēmu, protokolu un rīku ietvaros un attiecībā uz visiem IKT aktīviem:
a)
uzrauga un pārvalda visu IKT aktīvu aprites ciklu;
b)
attiecīgā gadījumā uzrauga, vai IKT aktīvus atbalsta finanšu vienību trešās personas, kas sniedz IKT pakalpojumus;
c)
identificē savu IKT aktīvu jaudas prasības un pasākumus, lai saglabātu un uzlabotu IKT sistēmu pieejamību un efektivitāti un novērstu IKT jaudas trūkumu, pirms tas rodas;
d)
veic automatizētu ievainojamības izvērtēšanu un IKT aktīvu novērtējumus atbilstīgi to klasifikācijai, kas minēta 30. panta 1. punktā, un IKT aktīva vispārējam riska profilam un izmanto ielāpus, lai risinātu identificēto ievainojamību;
e)
pārvalda riskus, kas saistīti ar novecojušiem, neatbalstītiem vai mantotiem IKT aktīviem;
f)
reģistrē notikumus, kas saistīti ar loģiskās un fiziskās piekļuves kontroli, IKT darbībām, tajā skaitā sistēmu un tīklu datplūsmas darbībām, un IKT izmaiņu pārvaldību;
g)
identificē un īsteno pasākumus, lai uzraudzītu un analizētu informāciju par anomālām darbībām un uzvedību attiecībā uz kritiski svarīgām vai svarīgām IKT darbībām;
h)
īsteno pasākumus, lai uzraudzītu būtisko un aktuālo informāciju par kiberdraudiem;
i)
īsteno pasākumus, lai apzinātu iespējamas informācijas noplūdes, ļaunprātīgus kodus un citus drošības apdraudējumus, un publiski zināmu ievainojamību attiecībā uz programmatūru un aparatūru, un pārbauda, vai nav atbilstošu jaunu drošības atjauninājumu.
Šā punkta f) apakšpunkta nolūkos finanšu vienības pielāgo žurnālu detalizācijas līmeni to mērķim un IKT aktīva, kas sagatavo šos žurnālus, izmantojumam.
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Atklāšana
-
|
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.
|