+Network Security Controls (NSC)
|
Network Security Controls (NSC)
Description
Mechanisms exist to develop, govern & update procedures to facilitate the implementation of Network Security Controls (NSC).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic firewall (home router or free pfSense)
∙ Network security policy
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Small business firewall (e.g., Cisco Meraki, Fortinet FortiGate)
∙ Network security policy
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Next-gen firewall (NGFW)
∙ Network segmentation
∙ IDS/IPS
∙ Network security standards
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise NGFW (e.g., Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet)
∙ Network security program
∙ IDS/IPS
∙ NAC
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise NGFW with threat intelligence feeds
∙ Zero-trust network architecture
∙ SIEM integration
∙ NAC
∙ SD-WAN
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls and routers) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception).
▪ Administrative processes enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.
▪ Internet-facing technologies are governed no differently from internal network assets.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop, govern & update procedures to facilitate the implementation of Network Security Controls (NSC).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) 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
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Regolamenti
| Sors |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 13 Ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network
Artikolu 13
Ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network
L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, bħala parti mis-salvagwardji li jiżguraw is-sigurtà tan-networks kontra l-intrużjonijiet u l-użu ħażin tad-data, jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politiki, proċeduri, protokolli u għodod dwar il-ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network, inklużi dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(a)
is-segregazzjoni u s-segmentazzjoni tas-sistemi u tan-networks tal-ICT filwaqt li jitqiesu:
(i)
il-kritikalità jew l-importanza tal-funzjoni li jappoġġaw dawk is-sistemi u n-networks tal-ICT;
(ii)
il-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554;
(iii)
il-profil tar-riskju kumplessiv tal-assi tal-ICT bl-użu ta’ dawk is-sistemi u networks;
(b)
id-dokumentazzjoni tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network u l-flussi tad-data kollha tal-entità finanzjarja;
(c)
l-użu ta’ network separat u ddedikat għall-amministrazzjoni tal-assi tal-ICT;
(d)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ kontrolli tal-aċċess għan-network biex jiġu evitati u identifikati konnessjonijiet man-network tal-entità finanzjarja minn kwalunkwe apparat jew sistema mhux awtorizzati, jew kwalunkwe punt tat-tmiem li ma jissodisfax ir-rekwiżiti ta’ sigurtà tal-entità finanzjarja;
(e)
il-kriptaġġ tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network li jgħaddu minn fuq in-networks korporattivi, in-networks pubbliċi, in-networks domestiċi, in-networks ta’ partijiet terzi, u n-networks mingħajr fili, għall-protokolli ta’ komunikazzjoni użati, filwaqt li jitqiesu r-riżultati tal-klassifikazzjoni tad-data approvata, ir-riżultati tal-valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT u l-kriptaġġ tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network imsemmija fl-Artikolu 6(2);
(f)
id-disinn ta’ networks f’konformità mar-rekwiżiti tas-sigurtà tal-ICT stabbiliti mill-entità finanzjarja, filwaqt li jitqiesu l-prattiki ewlenin biex jiġu żgurati l-kunfidenzjalità, l-integrità u d-disponibbiltà tan-network;
(g)
l-iżgurar tat-traffiku tan-network bejn in-networks interni u l-Internet u konnessjonijiet esterni oħrajn;
(h)
l-identifikazzjoni tar-rwoli u tar-responsabbiltajiet u tal-passi għall-ispeċifikazzjoni, għall-implimentazzjoni, għall-approvazzjoni, għat-tibdil u għar-rieżami tar-regoli dwar il-firewalls u tal-filtri tal-konnessjonijiet;
(i)
il-prestazzjoni tar-rieżamijiet tal-arkitettura tan-network u tad-disinn tas-sigurtà tan-network darba fis-sena, u perjodikament għall-mikrointrapriżi, biex jiġu identifikati l-vulnerabbiltajiet potenzjali;
(j)
il-miżuri biex jiġu iżolati temporanjament, meta meħtieġ, is-subnetworks, u l-komponenti u l-apparati tan-network;
(k)
l-implimentazzjoni ta’ linja bażi ta’ konfigurazzjoni sigura tal-komponenti kollha tan-network, u t-twebbis tan-network u tal-apparati tan-network f’konformità ma’ kwalunkwe struzzjoni tal-bejjiegħ, u, meta applikabbli, standards, kif iddefiniti fl-Artikolu 2, il-punt (1) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1025/2012, u prattiki ewlenin;
(l)
il-proċeduri biex jiġu llimitati, imblokkati u tterminati s-sistema u s-sessjonijiet mill-bogħod wara perjodu speċifikat ta’ inattività;
(m)
għall-ftehimiet dwar is-servizzi tan-network:
(i)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-ispeċifikazzjoni tal-miżuri tas-sigurtà tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni, tal-livelli ta’ servizz u tar-rekwiżiti ta’ ġestjoni tas-servizzi kollha tan-network;
(ii)
jekk dawk is-servizzi humiex ipprovduti minn fornitur ta’ servizzi intragrupp tal-ICT jew minn fornituri terz ta’ servizzi tal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (h), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom iwettqu r-rieżami tar-regoli dwar il-firewall u tal-filtri tal-konnessjonijiet fuq bażi regolari f’konformità mal-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u mal-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tas-sistemi tal-ICT involuti. Għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jivverifikaw l-adegwatezza tar-regoli eżistenti dwar il-firewall u l-filtri ta’ konnessjoni mill-anqas kull 6 xhur.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 35 Sigurtà tad-data, tas-sistema u tan-network
Artikolu 35
Sigurtà tad-data, tas-sistema u tan-network
L-entitajiet finanzjarji msemmija fl-Artikolu 16(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 għandhom, bħala parti mis-sistemi, il-protokolli u l-għodod tagħhom, jiżviluppaw u jimplimentaw salvagwardji li jiżguraw is-sigurtà tan-networks kontra l-intrużjonijiet u l-użu ħażin tad-data u li jippreżervaw id-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data. B’mod partikolari, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, filwaqt li jqisu l-klassifikazzjoni msemmija fl-Artikolu 30(1) ta’ dan ir-Regolament, jistabbilixxu dan kollu li ġej:
(a)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri għall-protezzjoni tad-data waqt l-użu, fi tranżitu u waqt li tkun wieqfa;
(b)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri ta’ sigurtà rigward l-użu ta’ software, mezzi għall-ħżin tad-data, sistemi u apparati ta’ punt tat-tmiem li jittrasferixxu u jaħżnu d-data tal-entità finanzjarja;
(c)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri biex jiġu pprevenuti u individwati konnessjonijiet mhux awtorizzati man-network tal-entità finanzjarja, u biex jiġi żgurat it-traffiku tan-network bejn in-networks interni tal-entità finanzjarja u l-Internet u konnessjonijiet esterni oħrajn;
(d)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri li jiżguraw id-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità u l-kunfidenzjalità tad-data matul it-trażmissjonijiet tan-network;
(e)
proċess biex titħassar b’mod sigur id-data fil-bini, jew li tinħażen esternament, li l-entità finanzjarja ma għadhiex teħtieġ tiġbor jew taħżen;
(f)
proċess biex l-apparati għall-ħżin tad-data fil-bini jew l-apparati għall-ħżin tad-data li jinħażnu esternament li jkun fihom informazzjoni kunfidenzjali jintremew b’mod sigur, jew jiġu ddekumissjonati;
(g)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri biex jiġi żgurat li t-telexogħol u l-użu ta’ apparati ta’ punt tat-tmiem privat ma jkollhomx impatt negattiv fuq il-kapaċità tal-entità finanzjarja li twettaq l-attivitajiet kritiċi tagħha b’mod adegwat, f’waqtu u sigur.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 21 Miżuri ta' ġestjoni tar-riskji taċ-ċibersigurtà
-
|
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.
|