|
+Auditing Remote Maintenance |
Auditing Remote MaintenanceDescriptionMechanisms exist to audit remote, non-local maintenance and diagnostic sessions, as well as review the maintenance action performed during remote maintenance sessions.Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Document maintenance activities in a logSmall Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Maintenance log∙ Authorized maintenance personnel list Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Formal maintenance management program∙ CMMS or ticketing system Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ CMMS (e.g., Maximo, ServiceNow)∙ Scheduled maintenance program ∙ Vendor access controls Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise CMMS platform∙ Automated maintenance scheduling ∙ Vendor access controls ∙ Remote access controls SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallySCR-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 TrackedMaintenance (MNT) 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 MNT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MNT 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 MNT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Maintenance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset 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, in conjunction with asset custodians, develop and maintain facilitate localized/regionalized procedures to conduct controlled and timely maintenance activities throughout the lifecycle of the Technology Asset, Application and/or Service (TAAS). ▪ Maintenance operations may be centralized for certain locations (e.g., datacenters) and decentralized for other locations, both in terms of change management and execution. Level 3 Well DefinedMaintenance (MNT) 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 MNT 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 MNT domain capabilities (e.g., maintenance pans) are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ A centralized Change Management Office (CMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MNT domain capabilities. ▪ Technical procedures (e.g., ITIL change enablement) are utilized along with change management governance capabilities to ensure successful, efficient and secure maintenance operations. ▪ 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 MNT 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 audit remote, non-local maintenance and diagnostic sessions, as well as review the maintenance action performed during remote maintenance sessions. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledMaintenance (MNT) 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 ImprovingUtilize 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. Overzicht
1.1 Referenties1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen1.3 Gerelateerde regelingen2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde regelingen
Gekoppelde issues
|