+Chain of Custody & Forensics
---+Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Chain of Custody & Forensics
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Chain of custody procedures
∙ OpenText Encase (https://opentext.com)
∙ AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK) (https://pluralsight.com)
∙ Extero (https://exterro.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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 perform digital forensics and maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and industry-recognized secure practices.
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. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Licensed Forensic Investigators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-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 use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ For eDiscovery, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manually identify and collect Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in order to respond to a request from a lawsuit or investigation.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 licensed forensic investigators to perform data analysis for evidentiary purposes that may be used in legal proceedings or to prove wrongdoing.
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 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Regolamenti
| Sors |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 13 2
2. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jistabbilixxu rieżamijiet għal wara li inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT jfixkel l-attivitajiet ewlenin tagħhom, billi janalizzaw il-kawżi tat-tfixkil u jidentifikaw it-titjib meħtieġ fl-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT jew fil-politika tal-kontinwità tal-operat tal-ICT imsemmija fl-Artikolu 11.
L-entitajiet finanzjarji, għajr il-mikrointrapriżi, għandhom, fuq talba, jikkomunikaw lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti l-bidliet li ġew implimentati wara li jkunu saru r-rieżamijiet ta’ wara inċident relatat mal-ICT kif imsemmi fl-ewwel subparagrafu.
Ir-rieżamijiet li jsiru wara l-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT imsemmija fl-ewwel subparagrafu għandhom jiddeterminaw jekk il-proċeduri stabbiliti ġewx segwiti u jekk l-azzjonijiet meħuda kinux effettivi, inkluż rigward dan li ġej:
|
(a)
|
il-prontezza fir-rispons għall-allerti tas-sigurtà u d-determinazzjoni tal-impatt tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT u s-severità tagħhom;
|
|
(b)
|
il-kwalità u l-ħeffa tat-twettiq ta’ analiżi forensika, fejn tqieset xierqa;
|
|
(c)
|
l-effettività tal-eskalazzjoni tal-inċidenti fl-entità finanzjarja;
|
|
(d)
|
l-effettività tal-komunikazzjoni interna u esterna.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 13 3
3. It-tagħlimiet meħuda mill-ittestjar tar-reżiljenza operazzjonali diġitali mwettaq f’konformità mal-Artikoli 26 u 27 u minn inċidenti relatati mal-ICT fil-ħajja reali, b’mod partikolari ċiberattakki, flimkien mal-isfidi li jfiġġu mal-attivazzjoni tal-pjanijiet tal-kontinwità tal-operat tal-ICT jew tal-pjanijiet ta’ rispons u rkupru għall-ICT, flimkien mal-informazzjoni rilevanti skambjata mal-kontropartijiet u vvalutata fir-rieżamijiet superviżorji, għandhom jiġu inkorporati kif xieraq fuq bażi kontinwa fil-proċess tal-valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT. Dawk is-sejbiet għandhom jifformaw il-bażi għal rieżamijiet xierqa tal-komponenti rilevanti tal-qafas tal-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 6(1).
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 23 Obbligi ta' rapportar
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 22 Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Artikolu 22
Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Bħala parti mill-mekkaniżmi biex jiġu individwati attivitajiet anomali, inklużi kwistjonijiet ta’ prestazzjoni tan-network tal-ICT u inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politika ta’ inċidenti relatata mal-ICT li permezz tagħha għandhom:
(a)
jiddokumentaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 17 tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554;
(b)
jistabbilixxu lista ta’ kuntatti rilevanti ma’ funzjonijiet interni u partijiet ikkonċernati esterni li huma involuti direttament fis-sigurtà tal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT, inkluż dwar:
(i)
l-individwazzjoni u l-monitoraġġ tat-theddid ċibernetiku;
(ii)
l-individwazzjoni ta’ attivitajiet anomali;
(iii)
il-ġestjoni tal-vulnerabbiltà;
(c)
jistabbilixxu, jimplimentaw u joperaw mekkaniżmi tekniċi, organizzazzjonali u operazzjonali biex jappoġġaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, inklużi mekkaniżmi li jippermettu individwazzjoni fil-pront ta’ attivitajiet u mġiba anomali f’konformità mal-Artikolu 23 ta’ dan ir-Regolament;
▼C1
(d)
iżommu l-evidenza kollha relatata ma’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT għal perjodu li ma għandux ikun itwal milli meħtieġ għall-finijiet li għalihom tinġabar id-data, proporzjonali mal-kritikalità tal-funzjonijiet tan-negozju affettwati, tal-proċessi ta’ appoġġ u tal-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni, f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(2) tar-Regolament Delegat tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2024/1772 (
2
) u ma’ kwalunkwe rekwiżit ta’ żamma applikabbli skont id-dritt tal-Unjoni;
▼B
(e)
jistabbilixxu u jimplimentaw mekkaniżmi biex janalizzaw inċidenti u xejriet sinifikanti jew rikorrenti relatati mal-ICT fl-għadd u fl-okkorrenza ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (d), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom iżommu l-evidenza msemmija f’dak il-punt b’mod 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.
|