+Defense-In-Depth (DiD) Architecture

Defense-In-Depth (DiD) Architecture

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture
∙ Enterprise architecture committee

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture
∙ Enterprise architecture committee

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160)
∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture
∙ Enterprise architecture committee

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).

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manage separate development, testing and operational environments to reduce the risks of unauthorized access or changes to the operational environment and to ensure no impact to production TAASD.

Level 3 Well Defined

Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of secure engineering management operations (e.g., project management solution).
▪ 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 SEA 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 secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers.

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

Rekwiżiti

3. Regolamenti relatati

Regolamenti
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 9 Protezzjoni u prevenzjoni
-
EULAW Artikolu 9 Protezzjoni u prevenzjoni
-
EULAW Artikolu 9 3

3.   Sabiex jintlaħqu l-objettivi msemmija fil-paragrafu 2, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jużaw soluzzjonijiet u proċessi tal-ICT li huma xierqa f’konformità mal-Artikolu 4. Dawk is-soluzzjonijiet u l-proċessi tal-ICT għandhom:

(a)

jiżguraw is-sigurtà tal-mezzi tat-trasferiment tad-data;

(b)

jimminimizzaw ir-riskju ta’ korruzzjoni jew telf ta’ data, ta’ aċċess mhux awtorizzat u ta’ difetti tekniċi li jistgħu jfixklu l-attività tan-negozju;

(c)

jipprevjenu n-nuqqas ta’ disponibbiltà, it-tnaqqis fl-awtentiċità u fl-integrità, il-ksur ta’ kunfidenzjalità u t-telf ta’ data;

(d)

jiżguraw li d-data tkun protetta minn riskji li jirriżultaw mill-ġestjoni tad-data, fosthom l-amministrazzjoni ħażina, riskji relatati mal-ipproċessar u żbalji umani.

Kwistjonijiet marbuta

Links
is related to Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks IAM-07.02B
blocks COS-01.02B
blocks COS-02.01B
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks IAM-07.02B
blocks COS-01.02B
blocks COS-02.01B
is blocked by SEA-06 Defense-In-Depth (DiD) Architecture – Assessment Procedure
blocks PL-08(01) Defense in Depth
blocks SC-03(05) Layered Structures
blocks 03.13.01 Boundary Protection
blocks 03.15.02E Defense In Depth
blocks PR.IR-01 Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.