+Development Methods, Techniques & Processes
---+Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
---+Secure Settings By Default
|
Development Methods, Techniques & Processes
Description
Mechanisms exist to require software developers to ensure that their software development processes employ industry-recognized secure practices for secure programming, engineering methods, quality control processes and validation techniques to minimize flawed and/or malformed software.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 require software developers to ensure that their software development processes employ industry-recognized secure practices for secure programming, engineering methods, quality control processes and validation techniques to minimize flawed and/or malformed software.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Standarts |
|
Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize a Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) to govern a secure development lifecycle for the development of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Security requirements checklist for new technology
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Security review checklist for technology acquisitions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM)
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
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 utilize a Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) to govern a secure development lifecycle for the development of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
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.
|
|
Secure Settings By Default
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement secure configuration settings by default to reduce the likelihood of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) being deployed with weak security settings that would put the TAAS at a greater risk of compromise.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Change default passwords and disable unneeded features on purchased products
∙ Require secure defaults from vendors
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure-by-default configuration checklist for developed/deployed products
∙ Vendor secure default requirements in procurement
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure defaults defined in Secure Software Development Practices (SSDP) and Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Hardening guides (e.g., CIS Benchmarks) applied to products
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure-by-default requirements in product security standards (e.g., CISA Secure by Design principles)
∙ Automated configuration validation before release
∙ Hardening verified during product testing
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise secure-by-design/secure-by-default program aligned with CISA Secure by Design
∙ Automated configuration compliance testing in CI/CD
∙ Customer-facing secure configuration guidance
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
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 implement secure configuration settings by default to reduce the likelihood of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) being deployed with weak security settings that would put the TAAS at a greater risk of compromise.
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
Saistītie uzdevumi
Saites
| Saites veids |
Uzdevums |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 05 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Technologies (AAT) System Failure or Unintended Behavior |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
is blocked by
|
TDA-03 Development Methods, Techniques & Processes – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
SA-04(03) Development Methods, Techniques, and Practices |
|
blocks
|
SR-03(01) Diverse Supply Base |
|
blocks
|
03.16.01 Security Engineering Principles |
|
blocks
|
PO.1 Define Security Requirements for Software Development |
|
blocks
|
PO.3 Implement Supporting Toolchains |
|
blocks
|
PO.3.1 Specify which tools or tool types must or should be included in each toolchain to mitigate identified risks, as well as how the toolchain components … |
|
blocks
|
PO.3.2 Follow recommended security practices to deploy, operate, and maintain tools and toolchains. |
|
blocks
|
PO.3.3 Configure tools to generate artifacts of their support of secure software development practices as defined by the organization. |
|
blocks
|
PO.4.2 Implement processes, mechanisms, etc. to gather and safeguard the necessary information in support of the criteria. |
|
blocks
|
PW.2 Review the Software Design to Verify Compliance with Security Requirements and Risk Information |
|
blocks
|
PW.5 Create Source Code by Adhering to Secure Coding Practices |
|
blocks
|
PW.6.1 Use compiler, interpreter, and build tools that offer features to improve executable security. |
|
blocks
|
RV.1 Identify and Confirm Vulnerabilities on an Ongoing Basis |
|
blocks
|
RV.2 Assess, Prioritize, and Remediate Vulnerabilities |
- 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.
|