+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Incident Response Training
Description
Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
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
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem 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
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.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
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 train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
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 |
|
Simulated Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
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.
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 incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
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.
|
|
Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 automatically provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
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 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 19 1
1. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jirrapportaw inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti kif imsemmi fl-Artikolu 46 f’konformità mal-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu.
Meta entità finanzjarja tkun soġġetta għal superviżjoni minn aktar minn awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali waħda msemmija fl-Artikolu 46, l-Istati Membri għandhom jiddeżinjaw awtorità kompetenti waħda bħala l-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti responsabbli biex twettaq il-funzjonijiet u d-dmirijiet previsti f’dan l-Artikolu.
L-istituzzjonijiet ta’ kreditu kklassifikati bħala sinifikanti, skont l-Artikolu 6(4) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1024/2013, għandhom jirrapportaw inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT lill-awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali rilevanti ddeżinjata skont l-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2013/36/UE, li għandha tibgħat immedjatament dak ir-rapport lill-BĊE.
Għall-fini tal-ewwel subparagrafu, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jipproduċu, wara li jiġbru u janalizzaw l-informazzjoni rilevanti kollha, in-notifika u r-rapporti inizjali msemmija fil-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu fuq il-mudelli msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 u jippreżentawhom lill-awtorità kompetenti. F’każ li jkun teknikament impossibbli li tintbagħat in-notifika inizjali fuq il-mudell, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jinnotifikaw lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti dwarha b’mezzi oħra.
In-notifika u r-rapporti inizjali msemmija fil-paragrafu 4 għandhom jinkludi l-informazzjoni kollha meħtieġa sabiex l-awtorità kompetenti tkun tista’ tiddetermina s-sinifikat tal-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u tivvaluta l-impatti transfruntiera possibbli.
Mingħajr preġudizzju għar-rappurtar skont l-ewwel subparagrafu mill-entità finanzjarja lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti, l-Istati Membri jistgħu, barra minn dan, jiddeterminaw li xi entitajiet finanzjarji, jew kollha, għandhom ukoll jipprovdu n-notifika inizjali u kull rapport imsemmi fil-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu fuq il-mudelli msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti jew lill-Iskwadri ta’ Rispons għal Inċidenti relatati mas-Sigurtà tal-Kompjuters (CSIRTs) iddeżinjati jew stabbiliti f’konformità mad-Direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 19 2
2. L-entitajiet finanzjarji jistgħu, fuq bażi volontarja, jinnotifikaw theddidiet ċibernetiċi sinifikanti lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti meta jqisu li t-theddida tkun ta’ rilevanza għas-sistema finanzjarja, għall-utenti tas-servizzi jew għall-klijenti. L-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti tista’ tipprovdi tali informazzjoni lil awtoritajiet rilevanti oħra msemmija fil-paragrafu 6.
L-istituzzjonijiet ta’ kreditu kklassifikati bħala sinifikanti, skont l-Artikolu 6(4) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1024/2013, jistgħu, fuq bażi volontarja, jinnotifikaw theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti lill-awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali rilevanti, iddeżinjata skont l-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2013/36/UE, li għandha tibgħat immedjatament dak ir-rapport lill-BĊE.
L-Istati Membri jistgħu jiddeterminaw li dawk l-entitajiet finanzjarji li, f’konformità mal-ewwel subparagrafu, jinnotifikaw fuq bażi volontarja, jistgħu jibagħtu wkoll dik in-notifika lis-CSIRTs iddeżinjati jew stabbiliti f’konformità mad-Direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 19 3
3. Meta jseħħ inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u dan ikollu impatt fuq l-interessi finanzjarji tal-klijenti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, mingħajr dewmien żejjed malli jindunaw bih, jinformaw lill-klijenti tagħhom dwar l-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u dwar il-miżuri li jkunu ttieħdu biex itaffu l-effetti negattivi ta’ inċident bħal dak.
Fil-każ ta’ theddida ċibernetika sinifikanti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, fejn applikabbli, jinformaw lill-klijenti tagħhom li potenzjalment ġew affettwati dwar kwalunkwe miżura ta’ protezzjoni xierqa li jistgħu jikkunsidraw li jieħdu bħala klijenti.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 19 4
4. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, fil-limiti ta’ żmien li jiġu stabbiliti f’konformità mal-Artikolu 20, l-ewwel paragrafu, il-punt (a), il-punt (ii), jippreżentaw dan li ġej lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti:
|
(b)
|
rapport intermedju wara n-notifika inizjali msemmija fil-punt (a), hekk kif l-istatus tal-inċident oriġinali jkun inbidel b’mod sinifikanti jew it-trattament tal-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT ikun inbidel abbażi tal-informazzjoni ġdida disponibbli, segwit, kif xieraq, minn notifiki aġġornati kull darba li jkun disponibbli aġġornament rilevanti tal-istatus, kif ukoll fuq talba speċifika tal-awtorità kompetenti;
|
|
(c)
|
rapport finali, meta l-analiżi tal-kawża ewlenija tkun tlestiet, irrispettivament minn jekk il-miżuri ta’ mitigazzjoni jkunux diġà ġew implimentati, u meta ċ-ċifri tal-impatt attwali jkunu disponibbli biex jissostitwixxu l-estimi.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 19 5
5. L-entitajiet finanzjarji jistgħu jesternalizzaw, skont il-liġi settorjali tal-Unjoni u dik nazzjonali, l-obbligi ta’ rappurtar skont dan l-Artikolu lil fornitur terz ta’ servizz. Fil-każ ta’ esternalizzazzjoni bħal din, l-entità finanzjarja tibqa’ terfa’ r-responsabbiltà sħiħa li tissodisfa r-rekwiżiti dwar ir-rappurtar tal-inċident.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 45 3
3. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jinnotifikaw lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti bil-parteċipazzjoni tagħhom fl-arranġamenti ta’ kondiviżjoni ta’ informazzjoni msemmija fil-paragrafu 1, mal-validazzjoni tas-sħubija tagħhom, jew, kif applikabbli, bil-waqfien tas-sħubija tagħhom, ladarba din issir effettiva.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 34 Komunikazzjoni ta' ksur ta' data personali lis-suġġett tad-data
-
|
|
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.
|