+Authenticator Management
---+Events Requiring Authenticator Change
---+Protection of Authenticators
---+No Embedded Unencrypted Static Authenticators
---+Default Authenticators
---+Expiration of Cached Authenticators
|
Authenticator Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to:
(1) Securely manage authenticators for users and devices; and
(2) Ensure the strength of authentication is appropriate to the classification of the data being accessed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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:
(1) Securely manage authenticators for users and devices; and
(2) Ensure the strength of authentication is appropriate to the classification of the data being accessed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Events Requiring Authenticator Change
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to change authentication credentials:
(1) At predefined intervals; and/or
(2) Upon suspicion of credential compromise.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Change passwords when compromise is suspected
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring authenticator change upon suspected compromise
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal authenticator replacement triggers and procedures
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise process for forced authenticator change on compromise indicators
∙ Automated triggering from SIEM
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IAM with automated authenticator reset workflows triggered by security events
∙ SIEM/SOAR integration
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 change authentication credentials:
(1) At predefined intervals; and/or
(2) Upon suspicion of credential compromise.
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.
|
|
Protection of Authenticators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to protect authenticators commensurate with the sensitivity of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Store passwords in a password manager
∙ Never share passwords
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Password manager for credential storage
∙ Policy for authenticator protection
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal authenticator protection policy
∙ Password manager deployment
∙ Hardware token protection
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise password management (e.g., CyberArk, 1Password)
∙ Hardware token management
∙ PKI for certificate protection
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise credential management platform (e.g., CyberArk, Thales)
∙ HSM for cryptographic authenticator protection
∙ Hardware token lifecycle management
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
▪ Password managers are not governed.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 protect authenticators commensurate with the sensitivity of the information to which use of the authenticator permits access.
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.
|
|
No Embedded Unencrypted Static Authenticators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that unencrypted, static authenticators are not embedded in applications, scripts or stored on function keys.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 unencrypted, static authenticators are not embedded in applications, scripts or stored on function keys.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Default Authenticators
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure default authenticators are changed as part of account creation or system installation.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 default authenticators are changed as part of account creation or system installation.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
|
Expiration of Cached Authenticators
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to prohibit the use of cached authenticators after an organization-defined time period.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Clear cached credentials on shared/public systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring clearing of cached authenticators on shared systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal cached authenticator expiration policy
∙ Technical controls for cache expiry
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise endpoint policy for authenticator cache expiration (e.g., GPO)
∙ Automated enforcement
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise endpoint management with cached credential expiration policies (e.g., Microsoft Intune, JAMF)
∙ Automated enforcement
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 automatically prohibit the use of cached authenticators after organization-defined time period.
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 21 Kontroll tal-aċċess
Artikolu 21
Bħala parti mill-kontroll tagħhom tad-drittijiet ta’ ġestjoni tal-aċċess, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politika li jkun fiha dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(a)
l-assenjazzjoni tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT abbażi tal-prinċipji tal-ħtieġa ta’ tagħrif, tal-ħtieġa ta’ użu u tal-anqas privileġġ, inkluż għal aċċess mill-bogħod u ta’ emerġenza;
(b)
is-segregazzjoni tad-dmirijiet imfassla biex jipprevjenu aċċess mhux iġġustifikat għal data kritika jew biex jipprevjenu l-allokazzjoni ta’ kombinazzjonijiet ta’ drittijiet ta’ aċċess li jistgħu jintużaw biex jiġu evitati l-kontrolli;
(c)
dispożizzjoni dwar l-akkontabilità tal-utent, billi jiġi llimitat sa fejn ikun possibbli l-użu ta’ kontijiet tal-utenti ġeneriċi u kondiviżi u jiġi żgurat li l-utenti jkunu identifikabbli għall-azzjonijiet imwettqa fis-sistemi tal-ICT f’kull ħin;
(d)
dispożizzjoni dwar ir-restrizzjonijiet tal-aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT, li tistabbilixxi kontrolli u għodod biex jiġi pprevenut aċċess mhux awtorizzat;
(e)
proċeduri ta’ ġestjoni tal-kontijiet għall-għoti, għat-tibdil jew għar-revoka tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għall-kontijiet tal-utenti u l-kontijiet ġeneriċi, inklużi l-kontijiet tal-amministraturi ġeneriċi, u wkoll dispożizzjoni dwar dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(i)
l-assenjazzjoni tar-rwoli u tar-responsabbiltajiet għall-għoti, għar-rieżami u għar-revoka tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess;
(ii)
l-assenjazzjoni ta’ aċċess privileġġat, ta’ emerġenza u ta’ amministratur fuq bażi ta’ ħtieġa ta’ użu jew fuq bażi ad hoc għas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT;
(iii)
l-irtirar tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess mingħajr dewmien żejjed mat-terminazzjoni tal-impjieg jew meta l-aċċess ma jkunx għadu meħtieġ;
(iv)
aġġornament tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess fejn ikunu meħtieġa tibdiliet u mill-anqas darba fis-sena għas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT, għajr għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti u mill-anqas kull 6 xhur għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti;
(f)
metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni, inklużi dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(i)
l-użu ta’ metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni proporzjonati għall-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u għall-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tal-assi tal-ICT u filwaqt li jitqiesu prattiki ewlenin;
(ii)
l-użu ta’ metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni b’saħħithom f’konformità ma’ prattiki u tekniki ewlenin għall-aċċess mill-bogħod għan-network tal-entità finanzjarja, għal aċċess privileġġat, għal aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti jew assi tal-ICT li huma aċċessibbli għall-pubbliku;
(g)
miżuri ta’ kontroll għall-aċċess fiżiku li jinkludu:
(i)
l-identifikazzjoni u r-reġistrazzjoni ta’ persuni fiżiċi li huma awtorizzati jaċċessaw il-bini, iċ-ċentri tad-data u ż-żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi identifikati mill-entità finanzjarja fejn hemm l-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni;
(ii)
l-għoti ta’ drittijiet ta’ aċċess fiżiku għal assi kritiċi tal-ICT lil persuni awtorizzati biss, f’konformità mal-prinċipji tal-ħtieġa ta’ tagħrif u tal-anqas privileġġ, u fuq bażi ad hoc;
(iii)
il-monitoraġġ tal-aċċess fiżiku għall-bini, għaċ-ċentri tad-data u għal żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi identifikati mill-entità finanzjarja fejn ikun hemm l-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni jew it-tnejn li huma;
(iv)
ir-rieżami tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess fiżiku biex jiġi żgurat li d-drittijiet ta’ aċċess mhux meħtieġa jiġu rrevokati minnufih.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (e)(i), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jistabbilixxu l-perjodu ta’ żamma filwaqt li jqisu l-objettivi tas-sigurtà tan-negozju u tal-informazzjoni, ir-raġunijiet għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-avveniment fir-reġistri u r-riżultati tal-valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (e)(ii), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, meta possibbli, jużaw kontijiet iddedikati għat-twettiq ta’ kompiti amministrattivi fuq is-sistemi tal-ICT. Meta jkun fattibbli u xieraq, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jużaw soluzzjonijiet awtomatizzati għall-ġestjoni tal-aċċess għall-privileġġ.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (g)(i), l-identifikazzjoni u r-reġistrazzjoni għandhom ikunu proporzjonati mal-importanza tal-bini, taċ-ċentri tad-data, taż-żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi u mal-kritikalità tal-operazzjonijiet jew tas-sistemi tal-ICT li jinsabu fihom.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (g)(iii), il-monitoraġġ għandu jkun proporzjonat mal-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u għall-kritikalità taż-żona aċċessata.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 21 Kontroll tal-aċċess
Artikolu 21
Bħala parti mill-kontroll tagħhom tad-drittijiet ta’ ġestjoni tal-aċċess, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politika li jkun fiha dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(a)
l-assenjazzjoni tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT abbażi tal-prinċipji tal-ħtieġa ta’ tagħrif, tal-ħtieġa ta’ użu u tal-anqas privileġġ, inkluż għal aċċess mill-bogħod u ta’ emerġenza;
(b)
is-segregazzjoni tad-dmirijiet imfassla biex jipprevjenu aċċess mhux iġġustifikat għal data kritika jew biex jipprevjenu l-allokazzjoni ta’ kombinazzjonijiet ta’ drittijiet ta’ aċċess li jistgħu jintużaw biex jiġu evitati l-kontrolli;
(c)
dispożizzjoni dwar l-akkontabilità tal-utent, billi jiġi llimitat sa fejn ikun possibbli l-użu ta’ kontijiet tal-utenti ġeneriċi u kondiviżi u jiġi żgurat li l-utenti jkunu identifikabbli għall-azzjonijiet imwettqa fis-sistemi tal-ICT f’kull ħin;
(d)
dispożizzjoni dwar ir-restrizzjonijiet tal-aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT, li tistabbilixxi kontrolli u għodod biex jiġi pprevenut aċċess mhux awtorizzat;
(e)
proċeduri ta’ ġestjoni tal-kontijiet għall-għoti, għat-tibdil jew għar-revoka tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għall-kontijiet tal-utenti u l-kontijiet ġeneriċi, inklużi l-kontijiet tal-amministraturi ġeneriċi, u wkoll dispożizzjoni dwar dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(i)
l-assenjazzjoni tar-rwoli u tar-responsabbiltajiet għall-għoti, għar-rieżami u għar-revoka tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess;
(ii)
l-assenjazzjoni ta’ aċċess privileġġat, ta’ emerġenza u ta’ amministratur fuq bażi ta’ ħtieġa ta’ użu jew fuq bażi ad hoc għas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT;
(iii)
l-irtirar tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess mingħajr dewmien żejjed mat-terminazzjoni tal-impjieg jew meta l-aċċess ma jkunx għadu meħtieġ;
(iv)
aġġornament tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess fejn ikunu meħtieġa tibdiliet u mill-anqas darba fis-sena għas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT, għajr għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti u mill-anqas kull 6 xhur għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti;
(f)
metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni, inklużi dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(i)
l-użu ta’ metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni proporzjonati għall-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u għall-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tal-assi tal-ICT u filwaqt li jitqiesu prattiki ewlenin;
(ii)
l-użu ta’ metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni b’saħħithom f’konformità ma’ prattiki u tekniki ewlenin għall-aċċess mill-bogħod għan-network tal-entità finanzjarja, għal aċċess privileġġat, għal aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti jew assi tal-ICT li huma aċċessibbli għall-pubbliku;
(g)
miżuri ta’ kontroll għall-aċċess fiżiku li jinkludu:
(i)
l-identifikazzjoni u r-reġistrazzjoni ta’ persuni fiżiċi li huma awtorizzati jaċċessaw il-bini, iċ-ċentri tad-data u ż-żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi identifikati mill-entità finanzjarja fejn hemm l-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni;
(ii)
l-għoti ta’ drittijiet ta’ aċċess fiżiku għal assi kritiċi tal-ICT lil persuni awtorizzati biss, f’konformità mal-prinċipji tal-ħtieġa ta’ tagħrif u tal-anqas privileġġ, u fuq bażi ad hoc;
(iii)
il-monitoraġġ tal-aċċess fiżiku għall-bini, għaċ-ċentri tad-data u għal żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi identifikati mill-entità finanzjarja fejn ikun hemm l-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni jew it-tnejn li huma;
(iv)
ir-rieżami tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess fiżiku biex jiġi żgurat li d-drittijiet ta’ aċċess mhux meħtieġa jiġu rrevokati minnufih.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (e)(i), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jistabbilixxu l-perjodu ta’ żamma filwaqt li jqisu l-objettivi tas-sigurtà tan-negozju u tal-informazzjoni, ir-raġunijiet għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-avveniment fir-reġistri u r-riżultati tal-valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (e)(ii), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, meta possibbli, jużaw kontijiet iddedikati għat-twettiq ta’ kompiti amministrattivi fuq is-sistemi tal-ICT. Meta jkun fattibbli u xieraq, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jużaw soluzzjonijiet awtomatizzati għall-ġestjoni tal-aċċess għall-privileġġ.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (g)(i), l-identifikazzjoni u r-reġistrazzjoni għandhom ikunu proporzjonati mal-importanza tal-bini, taċ-ċentri tad-data, taż-żoni ddeżinjati sensittivi u mal-kritikalità tal-operazzjonijiet jew tas-sistemi tal-ICT li jinsabu fihom.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (g)(iii), il-monitoraġġ għandu jkun proporzjonat mal-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u għall-kritikalità taż-żona aċċessata.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 33 Kontroll tal-Aċċess
Artikolu 33
L-entitajiet finanzjarji msemmija fl-Artikolu 16(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw proċeduri għall-kontroll loġiku u fiżiku tal-aċċess għandhom jinfurzaw, jimmonitorjaw u jirrieżaminaw perjodikament dawk il-proċeduri. Dawk il-proċeduri għandu jkun fihom l-elementi ta’ kontroll loġiku u fiżiku tal-aċċess li ġejjin:
(a)
id-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għal assi tal-informazzjoni, għal assi tal-ICT u għall-funzjonijiet appoġġati tagħhom, u għal postijiet kritiċi ta’ operazzjoni tal-entità finanzjarja, huma ġestiti fuq bażi ta’ ħtieġa ta’ tagħrif, ħtieġa ta’ użu u tal-anqas privileġġi, inkluż għal aċċess mill-bogħod u ta’ emerġenza;
(b)
l-akkontabilità tal-utent, li tiżgura li l-utenti jkunu jistgħu jiġu identifikati għall-azzjonijiet imwettqa fis-sistemi tal-ICT;
(c)
proċeduri ta’ ġestjoni tal-kontijiet għall-għoti, it-tibdil jew ir-revoka tad-drittijiet ta’ aċċess għall-kontijiet tal-utenti u l-kontijiet ġeneriċi, inklużi l-kontijiet ta’ amministraturi ġeneriċi;
(d)
metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni li huma proporzjonati għall-klassifikazzjoni msemmija fl-Artikolu 30(1) u għall-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tal-assi tal-ICT, u li huma bbażati fuq prattiki ewlenin;
(e)
id-drittijiet ta’ aċċess jiġu rrieżaminati perjodikament u jiġu rtirati meta ma jibqgħux meħtieġa.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (c), l-entità finanzjarja għandha tassenja aċċess privileġġat, ta’ emerġenza u ta’ amministratur fuq bażi tal-ħtieġa tal-użu jew fuq bażi ad hoc għas-sistemi kollha tal-ICT, u għandha tiġi rreġistrata f’konformità mal-Artikolu 34, l-ewwel paragrafu, il-punt (f).
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (d), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jużaw metodi ta’ awtentikazzjoni b’saħħithom li huma bbażati fuq prattiki ewlenin għall-aċċess mill-bogħod għan-network tal-entitajiet finanzjarji, għall-aċċess privileġġat, u għall-aċċess għall-assi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti li huma disponibbli għall-pubbliku.
|
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.
|