+Incident Response Plan (IRP)
---+Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 |
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ On at least an annual basis, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel update incident response strategies to keep current with business needs, technology changes and regulatory requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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
|
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
|
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
|
17. pants Ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības process
-
|
|
EULAW
|
17. pants Ar IKT saistītu incidentu pārvaldības process
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 1
1. Financial entities shall define, establish and implement an ICT-related incident management process to detect, manage and notify ICT-related incidents.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 2
2. Financial entities shall record all ICT-related incidents and significant cyber threats. Financial entities shall establish appropriate procedures and processes to ensure a consistent and integrated monitoring, handling and follow-up of ICT-related incidents, to ensure that root causes are identified, documented and addressed in order to prevent the occurrence of such incidents.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 3
3. The ICT-related incident management process referred to in paragraph 1 shall:
|
(a)
|
put in place early warning indicators;
|
|
(b)
|
establish procedures to identify, track, log, categorise and classify ICT-related incidents according to their priority and severity and according to the criticality of the services impacted, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 18(1);
|
|
(c)
|
assign roles and responsibilities that need to be activated for different ICT-related incident types and scenarios;
|
|
(d)
|
set out plans for communication to staff, external stakeholders and media in accordance with Article 14 and for notification to clients, for internal escalation procedures, including ICT-related customer complaints, as well as for the provision of information to financial entities that act as counterparts, as appropriate;
|
|
(e)
|
ensure that at least major ICT-related incidents are reported to relevant senior management and inform the management body of at least major ICT-related incidents, explaining the impact, response and additional controls to be established as a result of such ICT-related incidents;
|
|
(f)
|
establish ICT-related incident response procedures to mitigate impacts and ensure that services become operational and secure in a timely manner.
|
|
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.
|