+Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)
|
Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of risk-based vulnerability management capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
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 Kiberdrošības risku pārvaldības pasākumi
-
|
|
EULAW
|
3. pants IKT riska pārvaldība
3. pants
Finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno IKT riska pārvaldības politiku un procedūras, kas ietver visus no šiem elementiem:
a)
norāde par riska tolerances līmeņa IKT riskam, kas noteikts saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 6. panta 8. punkta b) apakšpunktu, apstiprināšanu;
b)
procedūra un metodika IKT riska novērtējuma veikšanai, norādot:
i)
ievainojamību un apdraudējumus, kas ietekmē vai var ietekmēt atbalstītās darbības funkcijas, IKT sistēmas un IKT aktīvus, kas atbalsta šīs funkcijas;
ii)
kvantitatīvos vai kvalitatīvos rādītājus i) apakšpunktā minētās ievainojamības un apdraudējumu ietekmes un varbūtības novērtēšanai;
c)
procedūra, ko izmanto, lai noteiktu, īstenotu un dokumentētu IKT riska risinājumu pasākumus attiecībā uz identificētajiem un novērtētajiem IKT riskiem, tajā skaitā noteiktu IKT riska risinājumu pasākumus, kas nepieciešami, lai panāktu, ka IKT risks atbilst a) punktā minētajam riska tolerances līmenim;
d)
attiecībā uz atlikušajiem IKT riskiem, kas joprojām pastāv pēc c) punktā minēto IKT riska risinājumu pasākumu īstenošanas:
i)
noteikumi par šo atlikušo IKT risku identificēšanu;
ii)
uzdevumu un atbildības noteikšana attiecībā uz:
1)
to atlikušo IKT risku pieņemšanu, kuri pārsniedz a) punktā minēto finanšu vienības riska tolerances līmeni;
2)
pārskatīšanas procesu, kas minēts šā d) punkta iv) apakšpunktā;
iii)
pieņemto atlikušo IKT risku inventarizācijas izstrāde, ietverot pamatojumu to pieņemšanai;
iv)
noteikumi par pieņemto atlikušo IKT risku pārskatīšanu vismaz reizi gadā, ietverot:
1)
norādi par jebkādām atlikušo IKT risku izmaiņām;
2)
pieejamo risku mazināšanas pasākumu novērtējumu;
3)
novērtējumu par to, vai iemesli, kas pamato atlikušo IKT risku pieņemšanu, joprojām ir spēkā un piemērojami pārskatīšanas datumā;
e)
noteikumi par to, kā uzrauga:
i)
jebkādas izmaiņas IKT risku un kiberdraudu vidē;
ii)
iekšējo un ārējo ievainojamību un apdraudējumus;
iii)
finanšu vienības IKT risku, lai varētu ātri atklāt izmaiņas, kas varētu ietekmēt tās IKT riska profilu;
f)
noteikumi par procesu, ar kuru nodrošina, ka tiek ņemtas vērā jebkādas izmaiņas finanšu vienības darbības stratēģijā un digitālās darbības noturības stratēģijā.
Pirmās daļas c) punkta nolūkos minētajā punktā norādītā procedūra nodrošina:
a)
īstenoto IKT riska risinājuma pasākumu efektivitātes uzraudzību;
b)
novērtējumu par to, vai ir sasniegti finanšu vienības noteiktie riska tolerances līmeņi;
c)
novērtējumu par to, vai finanšu vienība ir veikusi darbības, lai vajadzības gadījumā koriģētu vai uzlabotu minētos pasākumus.
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Ievainojamības un ielāpu pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Ievainojamības un ielāpu pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Ievainojamības un ielāpu pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Ievainojamības un ielāpu pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
10. pants Ievainojamības un ielāpu pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
31. pants IKT riska pārvaldība
-
|
|
EULAW
|
34. pants IKT darbību drošība
34. pants
Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 16. panta 1. punktā minētās finanšu vienības savu sistēmu, protokolu un rīku ietvaros un attiecībā uz visiem IKT aktīviem:
a)
uzrauga un pārvalda visu IKT aktīvu aprites ciklu;
b)
attiecīgā gadījumā uzrauga, vai IKT aktīvus atbalsta finanšu vienību trešās personas, kas sniedz IKT pakalpojumus;
c)
identificē savu IKT aktīvu jaudas prasības un pasākumus, lai saglabātu un uzlabotu IKT sistēmu pieejamību un efektivitāti un novērstu IKT jaudas trūkumu, pirms tas rodas;
d)
veic automatizētu ievainojamības izvērtēšanu un IKT aktīvu novērtējumus atbilstīgi to klasifikācijai, kas minēta 30. panta 1. punktā, un IKT aktīva vispārējam riska profilam un izmanto ielāpus, lai risinātu identificēto ievainojamību;
e)
pārvalda riskus, kas saistīti ar novecojušiem, neatbalstītiem vai mantotiem IKT aktīviem;
f)
reģistrē notikumus, kas saistīti ar loģiskās un fiziskās piekļuves kontroli, IKT darbībām, tajā skaitā sistēmu un tīklu datplūsmas darbībām, un IKT izmaiņu pārvaldību;
g)
identificē un īsteno pasākumus, lai uzraudzītu un analizētu informāciju par anomālām darbībām un uzvedību attiecībā uz kritiski svarīgām vai svarīgām IKT darbībām;
h)
īsteno pasākumus, lai uzraudzītu būtisko un aktuālo informāciju par kiberdraudiem;
i)
īsteno pasākumus, lai apzinātu iespējamas informācijas noplūdes, ļaunprātīgus kodus un citus drošības apdraudējumus, un publiski zināmu ievainojamību attiecībā uz programmatūru un aparatūru, un pārbauda, vai nav atbilstošu jaunu drošības atjauninājumu.
Šā punkta f) apakšpunkta nolūkos finanšu vienības pielāgo žurnālu detalizācijas līmeni to mērķim un IKT aktīva, kas sagatavo šos žurnālus, izmantojumam.
|
|
EULAW
|
9. pants Aizsardzība un profilakse
-
|
|
EULAW
|
25. pants IKT rīku un sistēmu testēšana
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 9 4
4. As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall:
|
(a)
|
develop and document an information security policy defining rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of data, information assets and ICT assets, including those of their customers, where applicable;
|
|
(b)
|
following a risk-based approach, establish a sound network and infrastructure management structure using appropriate techniques, methods and protocols that may include implementing automated mechanisms to isolate affected information assets in the event of cyber-attacks;
|
|
(c)
|
implement policies that limit the physical or logical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is required for legitimate and approved functions and activities only, and establish to that end a set of policies, procedures and controls that address access rights and ensure a sound administration thereof;
|
|
(d)
|
implement policies and protocols for strong authentication mechanisms, based on relevant standards and dedicated control systems, and protection measures of cryptographic keys whereby data is encrypted based on results of approved data classification and ICT risk assessment processes;
|
|
(e)
|
implement documented policies, procedures and controls for ICT change management, including changes to software, hardware, firmware components, systems or security parameters, that are based on a risk assessment approach and are an integral part of the financial entity’s overall change management process, in order to ensure that all changes to ICT systems are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, implemented and verified in a controlled manner;
|
|
(f)
|
have appropriate and comprehensive documented policies for patches and updates.
|
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (b), financial entities shall design the network connection infrastructure in a way that allows it to be instantaneously severed or segmented in order to minimise and prevent contagion, especially for interconnected financial processes.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e), the ICT change management process shall be approved by appropriate lines of management and shall have specific protocols in place.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 1
1. The digital operational resilience testing programme referred to in Article 24 shall provide, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 4(2), for the execution of appropriate tests, such as vulnerability assessments and scans, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses, physical security reviews, questionnaires and scanning software solutions, source code reviews where feasible, scenario-based tests, compatibility testing, performance testing, end-to-end testing and penetration testing.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 2
2. Central securities depositories and central counterparties shall perform vulnerability assessments before any deployment or redeployment of new or existing applications and infrastructure components, and ICT services supporting critical or important functions of the financial entity.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 3
3. Microenterprises shall perform the tests referred to in paragraph 1 by combining a risk-based approach with a strategic planning of ICT testing, by duly considering the need to maintain a balanced approach between the scale of resources and the time to be allocated to the ICT testing provided for in this Article, on the one hand, and the urgency, type of risk, criticality of information assets and of services provided, as well as any other relevant factor, including the financial entity’s ability to take calculated risks, on the other hand.
|
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.
|