+Monitoring Physical Access
---+Intrusion Alarms / Surveillance Equipment
---+Monitoring Physical Access To Critical Systems
|
Monitoring Physical Access
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
∙ Physical security guards
∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
∙ Physical security guards
∙ Staffed lobby (receptionist)
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
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.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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 monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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
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 |
|
Intrusion Alarms / Surveillance Equipment
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical alarm systems
∙ Video surveillance systems
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
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.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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 monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.
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.
|
|
Monitoring Physical Access To Critical Systems
|
Description
Facility security mechanisms exist to monitor physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Physical security policy
∙ Door locks and key management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Physical security policy
∙ Access log
∙ Visitor procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Physical security guards
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Physical security guards
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Physical security guards
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
▪ Facility security mechanisms exist to monitor physical access to business-critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
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.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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 monitor physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
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
|
12. pants Reģistrēšana
-
|
|
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.
|