+Input Data Validation
---+Error Handling
---+Designated Roles To View Error Messages
|
Input Data Validation
Description
Mechanisms exist to check the validity of information inputs.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Input validation in developed applications (OWASP Input Validation Cheat Sheet)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure coding standard requiring input validation
∙ Web framework validation features
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Input validation requirements in SSDP (allow-list validation, parameterized queries)
∙ SAST checks for injection
∙ Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Input validation standards (OWASP ASVS) enforced through SAST/DAST
∙ WAF/API gateway validation
∙ Security unit tests
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise secure coding standards with automated input validation testing (SAST, DAST, IAST, fuzzing)
∙ WAF and API security platforms
∙ Runtime application self-protection
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 check the validity of information inputs.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
1. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Error Handling
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to handle error conditions by:
(1) Identifying potentially security-relevant error conditions;
(2) Generating error messages that provide information necessary for corrective actions without revealing sensitive or potentially harmful information in error logs and administrative messages that could be exploited; and
(3) Revealing error messages only to authorized personnel.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Generic error messages to users; details logged server-side
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Error handling standard (no stack traces or sensitive data in user-facing errors)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Error handling requirements in SSDP
∙ Centralized logging of error details with restricted access
∙ DAST checks for information leakage
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise error handling standard with automated testing
∙ Centralized error logging (SIEM) with role-based access
∙ Security-relevant error alerting
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise error handling and information leakage prevention standards
∙ Automated DAST/IAST verification
∙ SIEM correlation of security-relevant error conditions
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 handle error conditions by:
(1) Identifying potentially security-relevant error conditions;
(2) Generating error messages that provide information necessary for corrective actions without revealing sensitive or potentially harmful information in error logs and administrative messages that could be exploited; and
(3) Revealing error messages only to authorized personnel.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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.
|
|
Designated Roles To View Error Messages
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to:
(1) Define personnel and/or role(s) authorized to receive security-relevant error messages; and
(2) Restrict access to error messages to authorized personnel and/or role(s).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Configure error messages to suppress technical details from end users
∙ Role-based access to application error logs
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Application configuration to display generic errors to end users
∙ Technical error details restricted to authorized administrators
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Error message configuration standards
∙ Role-based access to error logs and detailed messages
∙ Centralized log management with access controls
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise error message governance standard
∙ Role-based log access controls
∙ Automated testing for information disclosure via error messages
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise error handling standard with automated enforcement
∙ Centralized SIEM with role-based log access
∙ Automated security testing for error message information disclosure
∙ Integration with code review and CI/CD security gates
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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:
(1) Define personnel and/or role(s) authorized to receive security-relevant error messages; and
(2) Restrict access to error messages to authorized personnel and/or role(s).
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 |
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
Links
| Tip ta’ link |
Kwistjoni |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 08 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
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
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-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
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Technology |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
blocks
|
SMB/Windows Admin Shares |
|
blocks
|
VNC |
|
blocks
|
Command Obfuscation |
|
blocks
|
Masquerading |
|
blocks
|
Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location |
|
blocks
|
Masquerade File Type |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Command and Scripting Interpreter |
|
blocks
|
PowerShell |
|
blocks
|
AppleScript |
|
blocks
|
Windows Command Shell |
|
blocks
|
Unix Shell |
|
blocks
|
Visual Basic |
|
blocks
|
Python |
|
blocks
|
JavaScript |
|
blocks
|
Network Device CLI |
|
blocks
|
DNS |
|
blocks
|
Taint Shared Content |
|
blocks
|
Proxy |
|
blocks
|
Multi-hop Proxy |
|
blocks
|
Non-Application Layer Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution |
|
blocks
|
ClickOnce |
|
blocks
|
Shared Modules |
|
blocks
|
Software Extensions |
|
blocks
|
Forced Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Exploit Public-Facing Application |
|
blocks
|
BITS Jobs |
|
blocks
|
User Execution |
|
blocks
|
Malicious File |
|
blocks
|
System Script Proxy Execution |
|
blocks
|
PubPrn |
|
blocks
|
System Binary Proxy Execution |
|
blocks
|
Compiled HTML File |
|
blocks
|
Control Panel |
|
blocks
|
CMSTP |
|
blocks
|
InstallUtil |
|
blocks
|
Mshta |
|
blocks
|
Odbcconf |
|
blocks
|
Regsvcs/Regasm |
|
blocks
|
Regsvr32 |
|
blocks
|
Rundll32 |
|
blocks
|
Verclsid |
|
blocks
|
Mavinject |
|
blocks
|
MMC |
|
blocks
|
Electron Applications |
|
blocks
|
Remote Access Tools |
|
blocks
|
XSL Script Processing |
|
blocks
|
Template Injection |
|
blocks
|
Network Denial of Service |
|
blocks
|
Direct Network Flood |
|
blocks
|
Reflection Amplification |
|
blocks
|
Endpoint Denial of Service |
|
blocks
|
OS Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Service Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Application Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Application or System Exploitation |
|
blocks
|
Data from Cloud Storage |
|
blocks
|
Transfer Data to Cloud Account |
|
blocks
|
Screensaver |
|
blocks
|
LC_LOAD_DYLIB Addition |
|
blocks
|
Accessibility Features |
|
blocks
|
AppCert DLLs |
|
blocks
|
AppInit DLLs |
|
blocks
|
Winlogon Helper DLL |
|
blocks
|
Kernel Modules and Extensions |
|
blocks
|
TCC Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Unsecured Credentials |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Instance Metadata API |
|
blocks
|
Subvert Trust Controls |
|
blocks
|
Gatekeeper Bypass |
|
blocks
|
SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Mark-of-the-Web Bypass |
|
blocks
|
Adversary-in-the-Middle |
|
blocks
|
Name Resolution Poisoning and SMB Relay |
|
blocks
|
ARP Cache Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
DHCP Spoofing |
|
blocks
|
Hidden Window |
|
blocks
|
Run Virtual Instance |
|
blocks
|
Resource Forking |
|
blocks
|
Lateral Tool Transfer |
|
blocks
|
Protocol Tunneling |
|
blocks
|
Hijack Execution Flow |
|
blocks
|
DLL |
|
blocks
|
Dynamic Linker Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by Unquoted Path |
|
blocks
|
COR_PROFILER |
|
blocks
|
KernelCallbackTable |
|
blocks
|
AppDomainManager |
|
blocks
|
Network Boundary Bridging |
|
blocks
|
Network Address Translation Traversal |
|
blocks
|
Data from Configuration Repository |
|
blocks
|
SNMP (MIB Dump) |
|
blocks
|
Network Device Configuration Dump |
|
blocks
|
Container Administration Command |
|
blocks
|
Debugger Evasion |
|
blocks
|
Fraud / Theft / Direct Financial Loss |
|
blocks
|
AI Output / Decision Integrity Failure |
|
blocks
|
AI Data Confidentiality / Integrity / Provenance Loss |
|
blocks
|
OT Safety / Process Availability Failure |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authenticity / Provenance |
|
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
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Technologies (AAT) System Failure or Unintended Behavior |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Product Defect / Design Failure |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Adversarial Artificial Intelligence (AI) Attack |
|
blocks
|
Operational Technology (OT) / Industrial Control System (ICS) Attack |
|
is blocked by
|
TDA-12 Input Data Validation – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [L] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [L] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [M] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [M] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
AC-02 [H] Account Management |
|
blocks
|
AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties |
|
blocks
|
SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection |
|
blocks
|
SI-04 [H] System Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity |
|
blocks
|
SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation |
|
blocks
|
03.14.12E Information Input Validation |
- 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.
|