+Access To Critical Systems
---+Lockable Physical Casings
|
Access To Critical Systems
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Locked server closet/cabinet separate from general office access
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Locked server room with access limited to named IT staff
∙ Separate key or badge level for critical systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Badge-controlled server room with dedicated access group
∙ Locked racks for critical systems
∙ Access log review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data center / server room access restricted by PACS zone
∙ Locked cabinets or cages for critical and regulated systems
∙ Video surveillance of critical areas
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data center access control with multi-factor entry (badge + biometric/PIN)
∙ Caged or locked racks for critical systems
∙ Continuous access log monitoring
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
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
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Lockable Physical Casings
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Lockable cabinet for network/server equipment
∙ Kensington-style locks for shared devices
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Lockable server racks and network cabinets
∙ Tamper-evident seals on critical devices
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Locked racks in server room with key control
∙ Chassis locks and tamper-evident seals
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Locked cabinets/cages for all critical infrastructure
∙ Chassis intrusion detection enabled
∙ Tamper-evident seals with periodic inspection
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise rack-level access control with electronic locks and audit logs
∙ Chassis intrusion detection integrated with SIEM
∙ Tamper inspection 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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 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.
|
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.
|