+Encrypting Data At Rest
---+Encrypting Storage Media
---+Encrypting Offline Storage
|
Encrypting Data At Rest
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of data at rest.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-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 provide an encryption solution (software or hardware) for the storage of sensitive/regulated data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic capability exists to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data at rest.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Encrypting Storage Media
|
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive and/or regulated data residing on storage media.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic capability exists to protect the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive/regulated data residing on storage media.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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.
|
|
Encrypting Offline Storage
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to remove unused data from online storage and archive it off-line in a secure location until it can be disposed of according to data retention requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Move old files to encrypted offline/archive storage; delete when no longer needed
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Encrypted archive storage (e.g., encrypted external media, cloud archive tier)
∙ Retention schedule
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Encrypted off-line archive process with retention tracking
∙ Cloud archive tiers with encryption (e.g., AWS Glacier, Azure Archive)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Records management with encrypted offline archiving
∙ Archive media encryption and key escrow
∙ Retention-driven disposal
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise archiving platform with encryption and retention management (e.g., Veritas, Microsoft Purview)
∙ Encrypted offline/vaulted media
∙ Defensible disposal workflows
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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
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
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 remove unused data from online storage and archive it off-line in a secure location until it can be disposed of according to data retention requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Regolamenti
| Sors |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 6 Kriptaġġ u kontrolli kriptografiċi
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 35 Sigurtà tad-data, tas-sistema u tan-network
Artikolu 35
Sigurtà tad-data, tas-sistema u tan-network
L-entitajiet finanzjarji msemmija fl-Artikolu 16(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 għandhom, bħala parti mis-sistemi, il-protokolli u l-għodod tagħhom, jiżviluppaw u jimplimentaw salvagwardji li jiżguraw is-sigurtà tan-networks kontra l-intrużjonijiet u l-użu ħażin tad-data u li jippreżervaw id-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data. B’mod partikolari, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, filwaqt li jqisu l-klassifikazzjoni msemmija fl-Artikolu 30(1) ta’ dan ir-Regolament, jistabbilixxu dan kollu li ġej:
(a)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri għall-protezzjoni tad-data waqt l-użu, fi tranżitu u waqt li tkun wieqfa;
(b)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri ta’ sigurtà rigward l-użu ta’ software, mezzi għall-ħżin tad-data, sistemi u apparati ta’ punt tat-tmiem li jittrasferixxu u jaħżnu d-data tal-entità finanzjarja;
(c)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri biex jiġu pprevenuti u individwati konnessjonijiet mhux awtorizzati man-network tal-entità finanzjarja, u biex jiġi żgurat it-traffiku tan-network bejn in-networks interni tal-entità finanzjarja u l-Internet u konnessjonijiet esterni oħrajn;
(d)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri li jiżguraw id-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data matul it-trażmissjonijiet tan-network;
(e)
proċess biex titħassar b’mod sigur id-data fil-bini, jew li tinħażen esternament, li l-entità finanzjarja ma għadhiex teħtieġ tiġbor jew taħżen;
(f)
proċess biex l-apparati għall-ħżin tad-data fil-bini jew l-apparati għall-ħżin tad-data li jinħażnu esternament li jkun fihom informazzjoni kunfidenzjali jintremew b’mod sigur, jew jiġu ddekumissjonati;
(g)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri biex jiġi żgurat li t-telexogħol u l-użu ta’ apparati ta’ punt tat-tmiem privat ma jkollhomx impatt negattiv fuq il-kapaċità tal-entità finanzjarja li twettaq l-attivitajiet kritiċi tagħha b’mod adegwat, f’waqtu u sigur.
|
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|