+Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance Policy
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance Policy
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented security, compliance and resilience governance policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Documented annual policy review with version control
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history ∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting
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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
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
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Regolamenti
| Sors |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 5 1
1. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandu jkollhom fis-seħħ qafas intern ta’ governanza u kontroll li jiżgura l-ġestjoni effettiva u prudenti tar-riskju tal-ICT, f’konformità mal-Artikolu 6(4), sabiex jinkiseb livell għoli ta’ reżiljenza operazzjonali diġitali.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 9 4
4. Bħala parti mill-qafas tal-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 6(1), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom:
|
(a)
|
jiżviluppaw u jiddokumentaw politika tas-sigurtà tal-informazzjoni li tiddefinixxi r-regoli għall-protezzjoni tad-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data, l-assi tal-informazzjoni u l-assi tal-ICT, inkluż dawk tal-klijenti tagħhom, fejn applikabbli;
|
|
(b)
|
waqt li jsegwu approċċ ibbażat fuq ir-riskju, jistabbilixxu struttura għaqlija għall-ġestjoni tan-netwerk u tal-infrastruttura bl-użu ta’ tekniki, metodi u protokolli xierqa li jistgħu jinkludu l-implimentazzjoni ta’ mekkaniżmi awtomatizzati biex jiżolaw l-assi tal-informazzjoni fil-każ li jintlaqtu minn ċiberattakki;
|
|
(c)
|
jimplimentaw politiki li jillimitaw l-aċċess fiżiku jew loġiku għall-assi tal-informazzjoni u għall-assi tal-ICT għal dak li huwa meħtieġ għall-funzjonijiet u l-attivitajiet leġittimi u approvati biss, u għal dak il-għan jistabbilixxu sett ta’ politiki, proċeduri u kontrolli li jindirizzaw id-drittijiet tal-aċċess u jiżguraw l-amministrazzjoni għaqlija tagħhom;
|
|
(d)
|
jimplimentaw politiki u protokolli għal mekkaniżmi ta’ awtentikazzjoni b’saħħithom, ibbażati fuq standards rilevanti u sistemi ta’ kontroll dedikati, u miżuri ta’ protezzjoni ta’ ċwievet kriptografiċi li bihom id-data tiġi kriptata abbażi tar-riżultati ta’ proċessi approvati ta’ klassifikazzjoni tad-data u ta’ valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT;
|
|
(e)
|
jimplimentaw politiki, proċeduri u kontrolli dokumentati għall-ġestjoni tal-bidliet fl-ICT, inkluż bidliet fis-software, fil-hardware, fil-komponenti tal-firmware, parametri ta’ sistemi jew sigurtà, li jkunu bbażati fuq approċċ ta’ valutazzjoni tar-riskju u li huma parti integrali mill-proċess globali ta’ ġestjoni tat-tibdil tal-entità finanzjarja, sabiex jiżguraw li l-bidliet kollha fis-sistemi tal-ICT jiġu rreġistrati, ittestjati, ivvalutati, approvati, implimentati u vverifikati b’mod ikkontrollat;
|
|
(f)
|
ikollhom politiki dokumentati xierqa u komprensivi għal software korrettiv u ta’ aġġornament.
|
Għall-finijiet tal-ewwel subparagrafu, il-punt (b), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom ifasslu l-infrastruttura tal-konnessjoni tan-netwerk b’tali mod li din tkun tista’ tinqata’ b’mod istantanju jew tiġi segmentata sabiex jimminimizzaw u jipprevjenu l-kontaġju, speċjalment tal-proċessi finanzjarji interkonnessi.
Għall-finijiet tal- ewwel subparagrafu, il-punt (e), il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tat-tibdil fl-ICT għandu jiġi approvat mil-livelli xierqa tal-maniġment u għandu jkollu protokolli speċifiċi stabbiliti.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 16 1
1. L-Artikoli 5 sa 15 ta’ dan ir-Regolament ma għandhomx japplikaw għal ditti tal-investiment żgħar u mhux interkonnessi, istituzzjonijiet ta’ pagament eżentati skont id-Direttiva (UE) 2015/2366; istituzzjonijiet eżentati skont id-Direttiva 2013/36/UE li fir-rigward tagħhom l-Istati Membri ddeċidew li ma japplikawx l-opzjoni msemmija fl-Artikolu 2(4) ta’ dan ir-Regolament; istituzzjonijiet tal-flus elettroniċi eżentati skont id-Direttiva 2009/110/KE; u istituzzjonijiet żgħar għall-provvista ta’ rtirar okkupazzjonali.
Mingħajr preġudizzju għall-ewwel subparagrafu, l-entitajiet elenkati fl-ewwel subparagrafu għandhom:
|
(a)
|
jistabbilixxu u jżommu qafas għall-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT li jkun sod u ddokumentat li jiddeskrivi fid-dettall il-mekkaniżmi u l-miżuri mmirati lejn ġestjoni rapida, effiċjenti u komprensiva tar-riskju tal-ICT, inkluż għall-protezzjoni ta’ komponenti u infrastrutturi fiżiċi rilevanti;
|
|
(b)
|
jimmonitorjaw b’mod kontinwu s-sigurtà u l-funzjonament tas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT;
|
|
(c)
|
jimminimizzaw l-impatt tar-riskju tal-ICT billi jużaw sistemi, protokolli u għodod tal-ICT li jkunu sodi, reżiljenti u aġġornati u li jkunu xierqa biex jappoġġjaw it-twettiq tal-attivitajiet tagħhom u l-forniment tas-servizzi u jipproteġu b’mod adegwat id-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data fin-netwerk u fis-sistemi tal-informazzjoni;
|
|
(d)
|
jippermettu li s-sorsi ta’ riskju tal-ICT u anomaliji fin-netwerk u fis-sistemi tal-informazzjoni jiġu identifikati u individwati fil-pront u li l-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT jiġu mmaniġġati malajr;
|
|
(e)
|
jidentifikaw dipendenzi ewlenin fuq fornituri terzi ta’ servizzi tal-ICT;
|
|
(f)
|
jiżguraw il-kontinwità ta’ funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti, permezz ta’ pjanijiet ta’ kontinwità tal-operat u miżuri ta’ rispons u ta’ rkupru, li jinkludu, mill-inqas, miżuri ta’ backup u restawr;
|
|
(g)
|
jittestjaw, fuq bażi regolari, il-pjanijiet u l-miżuri msemmija fil-punt (f), kif ukoll l-effettività tal-kontrolli implimentati f’konformità mal-punti (a) u (c);
|
|
(h)
|
jimplimentaw, kif xieraq, konklużjonijiet operazzjonali rilevanti li jirriżultaw mit-testijiet imsemmija fil-punt (g) u mill-analiżi ta’ wara l-inċident fil-proċess ta’ valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT u jiżviluppaw, skont il-ħtiġijiet u l-profil tar-riskju tal-ICT, programmi ta’ sensibilizzazzjoni dwar is-sigurtà tal-ICT u taħriġ dwar ir-reżiljenza operazzjonali diġitali għall-persunal u għall-maniġment.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 16 2
2. Il-qafas tal-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1, it-tieni subparagrafu, il-punt (a), għandu jiġi ddokumentat u rieżaminat perjodikament u malli jseħħu inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT, f’konformità mal-istruzzjonijiet superviżorji. Huwa għandu jittejjeb kontinwament abbażi tal-lezzjonijiet meħuda mill-implimentazzjoni u l-monitoraġġ. Rapport dwar ir-rieżami tal-qafas tal-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT għandu jiġi ppreżentat lill-awtorità kompetenti fuq talba tagħha.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 21 Miżuri ta' ġestjoni tar-riskji taċ-ċibersigurtà
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 9 Zuständigkeit
(1) Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte ist zuständig für die Aufsicht über die öffentlichen Stellen des Bundes, auch soweit sie als öffentlich-rechtliche Unternehmen am Wettbewerb teilnehmen, sowie über Unternehmen, soweit diese für die geschäftsmäßige Erbringung von Telekommunikationsdienstleistungen Daten von natürlichen oder juristischen Personen verarbeiten und sich die Zuständigkeit nicht bereits aus § 29 des Telekommunikation-Digitale-Dienste-Datenschutz-Gesetzes ergibt. Die Vorschriften dieses Kapitels gelten auch für Auftragsverarbeiter, soweit sie nichtöffentliche Stellen sind, bei denen dem Bund die Mehrheit der Anteile gehört oder die Mehrheit der Stimmen zusteht und der Auftraggeber eine öffentliche Stelle des Bundes ist. (2) Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte ist nicht zuständig für die Aufsicht über die von den Bundesgerichten im Rahmen ihrer justiziellen Tätigkeit vorgenommenen Verarbeitungen.
|
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
- 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.
|