+Incident Response Plan (IRP)
---+Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 |
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
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.
▪ On at least an annual basis, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel update incident response strategies to keep current with business needs, technology changes and regulatory requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 22 Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Artikolu 22
Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Bħala parti mill-mekkaniżmi biex jiġu individwati attivitajiet anomali, inklużi kwistjonijiet ta’ prestazzjoni tan-network tal-ICT u inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politika ta’ inċidenti relatata mal-ICT li permezz tagħha għandhom:
(a)
jiddokumentaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 17 tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554;
(b)
jistabbilixxu lista ta’ kuntatti rilevanti ma’ funzjonijiet interni u partijiet ikkonċernati esterni li huma involuti direttament fis-sigurtà tal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT, inkluż dwar:
(i)
l-individwazzjoni u l-monitoraġġ tat-theddid ċibernetiku;
(ii)
l-individwazzjoni ta’ attivitajiet anomali;
(iii)
il-ġestjoni tal-vulnerabbiltà;
(c)
jistabbilixxu, jimplimentaw u joperaw mekkaniżmi tekniċi, organizzazzjonali u operazzjonali biex jappoġġaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, inklużi mekkaniżmi li jippermettu individwazzjoni fil-pront ta’ attivitajiet u mġiba anomali f’konformità mal-Artikolu 23 ta’ dan ir-Regolament;
▼C1
(d)
iżommu l-evidenza kollha relatata ma’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT għal perjodu li ma għandux ikun itwal milli meħtieġ għall-finijiet li għalihom tinġabar id-data, proporzjonali mal-kritikalità tal-funzjonijiet tan-negozju affettwati, tal-proċessi ta’ appoġġ u tal-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni, f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(2) tar-Regolament Delegat tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2024/1772 (
2
) u ma’ kwalunkwe rekwiżit ta’ żamma applikabbli skont id-dritt tal-Unjoni;
▼B
(e)
jistabbilixxu u jimplimentaw mekkaniżmi biex janalizzaw inċidenti u xejriet sinifikanti jew rikorrenti relatati mal-ICT fl-għadd u fl-okkorrenza ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (d), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom iżommu l-evidenza msemmija f’dak il-punt b’mod sigur.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 22 Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Artikolu 22
Politika ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT
Bħala parti mill-mekkaniżmi biex jiġu individwati attivitajiet anomali, inklużi kwistjonijiet ta’ prestazzjoni tan-network tal-ICT u inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politika ta’ inċidenti relatata mal-ICT li permezz tagħha għandhom:
(a)
jiddokumentaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT imsemmi fl-Artikolu 17 tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554;
(b)
jistabbilixxu lista ta’ kuntatti rilevanti ma’ funzjonijiet interni u partijiet ikkonċernati esterni li huma involuti direttament fis-sigurtà tal-operazzjonijiet tal-ICT, inkluż dwar:
(i)
l-individwazzjoni u l-monitoraġġ tat-theddid ċibernetiku;
(ii)
l-individwazzjoni ta’ attivitajiet anomali;
(iii)
il-ġestjoni tal-vulnerabbiltà;
(c)
jistabbilixxu, jimplimentaw u joperaw mekkaniżmi tekniċi, organizzazzjonali u operazzjonali biex jappoġġaw il-proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT, inklużi mekkaniżmi li jippermettu individwazzjoni fil-pront ta’ attivitajiet u mġiba anomali f’konformità mal-Artikolu 23 ta’ dan ir-Regolament;
▼C1
(d)
iżommu l-evidenza kollha relatata ma’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT għal perjodu li ma għandux ikun itwal milli meħtieġ għall-finijiet li għalihom tinġabar id-data, proporzjonali mal-kritikalità tal-funzjonijiet tan-negozju affettwati, tal-proċessi ta’ appoġġ u tal-assi tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni, f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(2) tar-Regolament Delegat tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2024/1772 (
2
) u ma’ kwalunkwe rekwiżit ta’ żamma applikabbli skont id-dritt tal-Unjoni;
▼B
(e)
jistabbilixxu u jimplimentaw mekkaniżmi biex janalizzaw inċidenti u xejriet sinifikanti jew rikorrenti relatati mal-ICT fl-għadd u fl-okkorrenza ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (d), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom iżommu l-evidenza msemmija f’dak il-punt b’mod sigur.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 17 Proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatat mal-ICT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 17 Proċess ta’ ġestjoni tal-inċidenti relatat mal-ICT
-
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|