+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. Overzicht
| Titel |
Standaard |
|
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 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde regelingen
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde regelingen
Regelingen
| Bron |
Regelgeving |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Toegangscontrole
Artikel 21
Als onderdeel van hun controle op het beheer van toegangsrechten ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren financiële entiteiten een beleid dat alle volgende elementen bevat:
a)
de toekenning van toegangsrechten tot ICT-assets op basis van need-to-know-, need-to-use- en least-privilege-principes, ook voor remote access en emergency access;
b)
de functiescheiding die is ingericht om ongerechtvaardigde toegang tot kritieke data te voorkomen of om de toewijzing te voorkomen van combinaties van toegangsrechten die kunnen worden gebruikt om controles te omzeilen;
c)
een bepaling betreffende de verantwoordingsplicht van gebruikers, door in de mate van het mogelijke het gebruik van generieke en gedeelde gebruikersaccounts te beperken en ervoor te zorgen dat gebruikers te allen tijde identificeerbaar zijn voor de acties die in de ICT-systemen worden uitgevoerd;
d)
een bepaling inzake beperkingen van toegang tot ICT-assets, met vermelding van beheersmaatregelen en tools die ongeautoriseerde toegang moeten voorkomen;
e)
procedures voor accountbeheer om toegangsrechten voor gebruikersaccounts en generieke accounts, daaronder begrepen generieke administrator accounts, toe te kennen, te wijzigen of in te trekken, met inbegrip van bepalingen over alle volgende elementen:
i)
toewijzing van rollen en verantwoordelijkheden voor het toekennen, herzien en intrekken van toegangsrechten;
ii)
toekenning van privileged, emergency- en administrator toegang op need-to-use- of op ad-hocbasis voor alle ICT-systemen;
iii)
onmiddellijke intrekking van toegangsrechten bij beëindiging van het dienstverband of wanneer toegang niet langer noodzakelijk is;
iv)
update van toegangsrechten wanneer wijzigingen noodzakelijk zijn en ten minste eenmaal per jaar voor alle ICT-systemen niet zijnde ICT-systemen die kritieke of belangrijke functies ondersteunen, en ten minste om de zes maanden voor ICT-systemen die kritieke of belangrijke functies ondersteunen;
f)
authenticatiemethoden, die alle volgende elementen bevatten:
i)
het gebruik van authenticatiemethoden die in verhouding staan tot de overeenkomstig artikel 8, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 vastgestelde classificatie en het algemene risicoprofiel van de ICT-assets en rekening houdende met maatgevende praktijken;
ii)
het gebruik van sterke authenticatiemethoden in overeenstemming met maatgevende praktijken en technieken voor remote access tot het netwerk van de financiële entiteit, voor privileged access, voor toegang tot ICT-assets die kritieke of belangrijke functies ondersteunen of ICT-assets die publiek toegankelijk zijn;
g)
maatregelen voor fysieke toegangscontrole, met inbegrip van:
i)
de identificatie en logging van natuurlijke personen met geautoriseerde toegang tot bedrijfslocaties, datacentra en door de financiële entiteit afgebakende gevoelige zones waar ICT- en informatieassets zijn ondergebracht;
ii)
het toekennen van fysieke toegangsrechten tot kritieke ICT-assets aan uitsluitend geautoriseerde personen, in overeenstemming met de need-to-know- en least privilege-principes, en op ad-hocbasis;
iii)
de monitoring van fysieke toegang tot bedrijfslocaties, datacentra en door de financiële entiteit afgebakende gevoelige zones waar ICT-assets, informatieassets of beide soorten assets zijn ondergebracht;
iv)
de herziening van fysieke toegangsrechten om ervoor te zorgen dat niet-noodzakelijke toegangsrechten prompt worden ingetrokken.
Voor de toepassing van punt e), i), stellen financiële entiteiten de retentieperiode vast, rekening houdende met de doelstellingen inzake bedrijfs- en informatiebeveiliging, de redenen voor het vastleggen van het event in de logs, en de uitkomsten van de ICT-risicobeoordeling.
Voor de toepassing van punt e), ii), maken financiële entiteiten, voor zover mogelijk, gebruik van specifieke accounts voor het uitvoeren van administratieve taken op ICT-systemen. Waar doenbaar en passend rollen financiële entiteiten geautomatiseerde oplossingen uit voor hun Privileged Access Management (PAM).
Voor de toepassing van punt g), i), staan de identificatie en logging in verhouding tot het belang van de bedrijfslocaties, datacentra, afgebakende gevoelige zones en het kritieke karakter van de operaties of ICT-systemen die daarin zijn ondergebracht.
Voor de toepassing van punt g), iii), staat de monitoring in verhouding tot de overeenkomstig artikel 8, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 vastgestelde classificatie en het kritieke karakter van de zone waartoe personen toegang hebben.
|
Gekoppelde issues
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|