+Encrypting Data At Rest
---+Encrypting Storage Media
---+Encrypting Offline Storage
|
Encrypting Data At Rest
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of data at rest.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel provide an encryption solution (software or hardware) for the storage of sensitive/regulated data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic capability exists to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data at rest.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 |
|
Encrypting Storage Media
|
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive and/or regulated data residing on storage media.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic capability exists to protect the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive/regulated data residing on storage media.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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.
|
|
Encrypting Offline Storage
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to remove unused data from online storage and archive it off-line in a secure location until it can be disposed of according to data retention requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Move old files to encrypted offline/archive storage; delete when no longer needed
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Encrypted archive storage (e.g., encrypted external media, cloud archive tier)
∙ Retention schedule
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Encrypted off-line archive process with retention tracking
∙ Cloud archive tiers with encryption (e.g., AWS Glacier, Azure Archive)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Records management with encrypted offline archiving
∙ Archive media encryption and key escrow
∙ Retention-driven disposal
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise archiving platform with encryption and retention management (e.g., Veritas, Microsoft Purview)
∙ Encrypted offline/vaulted media
∙ Defensible disposal workflows
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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 remove unused data from online storage and archive it off-line in a secure location until it can be disposed of according to data retention requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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
|
6. pants Šifrēšanas un kriptogrāfijas kontroles
-
|
|
EULAW
|
35. pants Datu, sistēmu un tīkla drošība
35. pants
Datu, sistēmu un tīkla drošība
Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 16. panta 1. punktā minētās finanšu vienības kā daļu no savām sistēmām, protokoliem un rīkiem izstrādā un īsteno aizsardzības pasākumus, kas nodrošina tīklu aizsardzību pret ielaušanos un datu ļaunprātīgu izmantošanu un kas saglabā datu pieejamību, autentiskumu, integritāti un konfidencialitāti. Konkrētāk, finanšu vienības, ņemot vērā šīs regulas 30. panta 1. punktā minēto klasifikāciju, nosaka:
a)
pasākumu identifikāciju un īstenošanu, lai aizsargātu datus, kad tie tiek izmantoti, tiek nosūtīti vai tiek glabāti;
b)
drošības pasākumu identifikāciju un īstenošanu attiecībā uz tādas programmatūras, datu nesēju, sistēmu un galapunkta ierīču izmantošanu, kuras nosūta un glabā finanšu vienības datus;
c)
pasākumu identifikāciju un īstenošanu, lai novērstu un atklātu neatļautu pieslēgšanos finanšu vienības tīklam un aizsargātu tīkla datplūsmu starp finanšu vienības iekšējiem tīkliem un internetu un citiem ārējiem pieslēgumiem;
d)
pasākumu identifikāciju un īstenošanu, lai nodrošinātu datu pieejamību, autentiskumu, integritāti un konfidencialitāti, kad notiek nosūtīšana tīklā;
e)
procesu to datu drošai dzēšanai, kas tiek turēti telpās vai tiek glabāti ārēji un ko finanšu vienībai vairs nav nepieciešams vākt vai glabāt;
f)
procesu, lai droši utilizētu vai izņemtu no ekspluatācijas telpās esošās datu glabāšanas ierīces vai datu glabāšanas ierīces, kas tiek glabātas ārēji un kas satur konfidenciālu informāciju;
g)
pasākumu identifikāciju un īstenošanu, lai nodrošinātu, ka tāldarbs un privātu galapunkta ierīču izmantošana nelabvēlīgi neietekmē finanšu vienības spēju veikt tās kritiski svarīgās darbības pienācīgā, savlaicīgā un drošā veidā.
|
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.
|