+Malicious Code Protection (Antimalware)
---+Always On Antimalware Protection
---+Heuristic / Nonsignature-Based Malware Detection
|
Malicious Code Protection (Antimalware)
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize antimalware, or similar technologies, to detect and eradicate malicious code.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are decentralized but are deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are centralized, deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are configured to generate event logs that can be centrally-reviewed (e.g., forwarded to a SIEM).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to provide real-time protection (e.g., always on).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to automatically update.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 antimalware technologies to detect and eradicate malicious code.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 |
|
Always On Antimalware Protection
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure unless specifically authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period that anti-malware technologies:
(1) Are continuously running in real-time; and
(2) Cannot be disabled or altered by non-privileged users.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security 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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are centralized, deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are configured to generate event logs that can be centrally-reviewed (e.g., forwarded to a SIEM).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to provide real-time protection (e.g., always on).
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 ensure that anti-malware technologies are continuously running in real-time and cannot be disabled or altered by non-privileged users, unless specifically authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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.
|
|
Heuristic / Nonsignature-Based Malware Detection
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize heuristic / nonsignature-based antimalware detection capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security 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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 heuristic / nonsignature-based antimalware detection capabilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 11 Sigurtà tad-datau tas-sistema
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 34 Sigurtà tal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT
Artikolu 34
Sigurtà tal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT
L-entitajiet finanzjarji msemmija fl-Artikolu 16(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 għandhom, bħala parti mis-sistemi, mill-protokolli u mill-għodod tagħhom, u għall-assi kollha tal-ICT:
(a)
jimmonitorjaw u jimmaniġġaw iċ-ċiklu tal-ħajja tal-assi kollha tal-ICT;
(b)
jimmonitorjaw jekk l-assi tal-ICT humiex appoġġati minn fornituri terzi ta’ servizzi tal-ICT ta’ entitajiet finanzjarji, meta applikabbli;
(c)
jidentifikaw ir-rekwiżiti tal-kapaċità tal-assi u l-miżuri tal-ICT tagħhom biex iżommu u jtejbu d-disponibbiltà u l-effiċjenza tas-sistemi tal-ICT u jipprevjenu n-nuqqas ta’ kapaċitajiet tal-ICT qabel ma jimmaterjalizzaw;
(d)
iwettqu skennjar u valutazzjonijiet awtomatizzati għall-vulnerabbiltajiet fuq l-assi tal-ICT proporzjonati għall-klassifikazzjoni tagħhom kif imsemmi fl-Artikolu 30(1) u għall-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tal-assi tal-ICT, u jużaw is-software korrettiv biex jirrimedjaw il-vulnerabbiltajiet identifikati;
(e)
jimmaniġġaw ir-riskji relatati ma’ assi tal-ICT skaduti, mhux appoġġati jew miruta;
(f)
jirreġistraw avvenimenti relatati mal-kontroll loġiku u fiżiku tal-aċċess, mal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT, inklużi l-attivitajiet tat-traffiku tas-sistema u tan-network, u l-ġestjoni tat-tibdil fl-ICT;
(g)
jidentifikaw u jimplimentaw miżuri għall-monitoraġġ u l-analiżi ta’ informazzjoni dwar attivitajiet u mġiba anomali għal operazzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti tal-ICT;
(h)
jimplimentaw miżuri għall-monitoraġġ ta’ informazzjoni rilevanti u aġġornata dwar it-theddid ċibernetiku;
(i)
jimplimentaw miżuri biex jidentifikaw tixrid possibbli ta’ informazzjoni, kodiċi malizzjuż u theddid ieħor għas-sigurtà, u vulnerabbiltajiet magħrufa pubblikament fis-software u fil-hardware, u jivverifikaw aġġornamenti korrispondenti ġodda dwar is-sigurtà.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (f), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jallinjaw il-livell ta’ dettall tar-reġistri mal-iskop u l-użu tagħhom tal-assi tal-ICT li jipproduċi dawk ir-reġistri.
|
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.
|