+Role-Based Physical Access
---+Dual Authorization for Physical Access
|
Role-Based Physical Access
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to authorize physical access to facilities based on the position or role of the individual.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Key or badge issuance based on job role
∙ Server closet access limited to owner/IT contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Role-based badge access groups in door access system
∙ Documented access matrix by role
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical access control system with role-based access levels (e.g., Brivo, Verkada, Kisi)
∙ Access matrix reviewed with HR role changes
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise physical access control system with role-based zones (e.g., Lenel, Genetec, Honeywell)
∙ HR-driven role provisioning for physical access
∙ Periodic access recertification by area owner
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PACS integrated with identity governance for role-based physical access
∙ Automated provisioning/deprovisioning from HR events
∙ Quarterly access recertification by facility zone
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ The Human Resources (HR) department maintains a current list of personnel with authorized access to organizational facilities and facilitates the implementation of physical access management controls.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational physical security capability exists to authorize physical access to facilities based on the position or role of the individual.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Standarts |
|
Dual Authorization for Physical Access
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enforce a "two-person rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe and high-security cage).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Note: Typically not required at this size; two-person rule for safe/critical storage if applicable
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Two-person rule for server room or safe access where required
∙ Dual-key or dual-code lock
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Two-person rule enforced by access control system for high-security areas
∙ Dual-authentication door readers
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ PACS dual-authorization (two-badge) rule for data center and high-security rooms
∙ Alarm on single-person entry
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PACS with enforced two-person rule and anti-passback
∙ Video verification of dual entry
∙ Audit reporting on two-person rule compliance
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce a "two-person rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe and high-security cage).
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
|
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.
|
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.
|