+Incident Response Policy
|
Incident Response Policy
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented incident response 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
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery. ▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
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 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 14 1
1. Bħala parti mill-qafas ta’ ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 6(1), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandu jkollhom fis-seħħ pjanijiet ta’ komunikazzjoni tal-kriżijiet li jippermettu divulgazzjoni responsabbli ta’ inċidenti jew vulnerabbiltajiet relatati mal-ICT, tal-anqas dawk kbar, mal-klijenti u mal-kontropartijiet, kif ukoll mal-pubbliku, kif xieraq.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 14 2
2. Bħala parti mill-qafas ta’ ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jimplimentaw politiki ta’ komunikazzjoni għall-persunal intern u għall-partijiet ikkonċernati esterni. Il-politiki ta’ komunikazzjoni għall-persunal għandhom iqisu l-ħtieġa li ssir distinzjoni bejn il-persunal involut fil-ġestjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT, b’mod partikolari l-persunal responsabbli għar-rispons u l-irkupru, u l-persunal li jeħtieġ li jiġi informat.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 14 3
3. Mill-inqas persuna waħda fl-entità finanzjarja għandha tingħata l-kompitu li timplimenta l-istrateġija ta’ komunikazzjoni għal inċidenti relatati mal-ICT u taqdi l-funzjoni pubblika u għall-media għal dak l-iskop.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 17 1
1. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiddefinixxu, jistabbilixxu u jimplimentaw proċess ta’ ġestjoni ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT biex jindividwaw, jimmaniġġjaw u jinnotifikaw inċidenti relatati mal-ICT.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 17 2
2. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jirreġistraw l-inċidenti kollha relatati mal-ICT u t-theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jistabbilixxu proċeduri u proċessi xierqa biex jiżguraw monitoraġġ, maniġġar u segwitu konsistenti u integrati tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, biex jiżguraw li l-kawżi ewlenin jiġu identifikati, iddokumentati u indirizzati sabiex jipprevjenu tali inċidenti.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 17 3
3. Il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1 għandu:
|
(a)
|
jistabbilixxi indikaturi ta’ twissija bikrija;
|
|
(b)
|
jistabbilixxi proċeduri biex jidentifikaw, jittraċċaw, jirreġistraw, jikkategorizzaw u jikklassifikaw inċidenti relatati mal-ICT skont il-prijorità tagħhom u s-severità u skont il-kritikalità tas-servizzi milquta, f’konformità mal-kriterji stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 18(1);
|
|
(c)
|
jassenja rwoli u responsabbiltajiet li jeħtieġ li jiġu attivati għal tipi u xenarji differenti ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT;
|
|
(d)
|
jistabbilixxi pjanijiet għall-komunikazzjoni mal-persunal, mal-partijiet ikkonċernati esterni u mal-media f’konformità mal-Artikolu 14, u għan-notifika lill-klijenti, għall-proċeduri interni ta’ eskalazzjoni, inkluż ilmenti tal-klijenti relatati mal-ICT, kif ukoll għall-għoti ta’ informazzjoni lill-entitajiet finanzjarji li jaġixxu bħala kontropartijiet, kif xieraq;
|
|
(e)
|
jiżgura li mill-inqas l-inċidenti l-kbar relatati mal-ICT jiġu rrappurtati lill-maniġment superjuri rilevanti u li l-korp maniġerjali jiġi infurmat dwar inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, mill-inqas dawk kbar, filwaqt li jispjega l-impatt, ir-rispons u l-kontrolli addizzjonali li għandhom jiġu stabbiliti bħala riżultat ta’ inċidenti bħal dawn relatati mal-ICT;
|
|
(f)
|
jistabbilixxi proċeduri ta’ rispons għal inċidenti relatati mal-ICT biex jittaffu l-impatti u jiżgura li s-servizzi jsiru operazzjonali u siguri fil-waqt.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 21 Miżuri ta' ġestjoni tar-riskji taċ-ċibersigurtà
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 23 Obbligi ta' rapportar
-
|
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.
|