+Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
---+System Account Reviews
|
Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
Description
Mechanisms exist to periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual review of user access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Periodic (at least annual) review of all user account privileges
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal quarterly/annual account privilege review process
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program with automated review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt, IBM Security Verify)
∙ Automated access certification
∙ Continuous access review
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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. Overzicht
| Titel |
Standaard |
|
System Account Reviews
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Periodic review of user accounts and access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual user account review
∙ Remove unused accounts and excess access
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal periodic account review process
∙ Quarterly access reviews
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program
∙ Automated access review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt)
∙ Automated access certification campaigns
∙ Manager-driven access reviews
∙ Role mining and optimization
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM proactively governs account management of individual, group, system, application, guest and temporary accounts.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
1.1 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.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 33 Toegangscontrole
Artikel 33
De in artikel 16, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 bedoelde financiële entiteiten ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren procedures voor de controle op logische en fysieke toegang en handhaven en monitoren die procedures en evalueren deze periodiek. Die procedures bevatten de volgende elementen van controle op logische en fysieke toegang:
a)
toegangsrechten tot informatieassets, ICT-assets en de daardoor ondersteunde functies en tot kritieke operationele locaties van de financiële entiteit, worden beheerd op need-to-know-, need-to-use- en least-privilege-basis, ook voor remote access en emergency access;
b)
verantwoordingsplicht van gebruikers, waardoor gebruikers kunnen worden geïdentificeerd voor de in de ICT-systemen uitgevoerde acties;
c)
procedures voor accountbeheer om toegangsrechten voor gebruikers en generieke accounts, daaronder begrepen generieke administrator accounts, toe te kennen, te wijzigen of in te trekken;
d)
authenticatiemethoden die in verhouding staan tot de in artikel 30, lid 1, bedoelde classificatie en tot het algemene risicoprofiel van ICT-assets, en die op maatgevende praktijken zijn gebaseerd;
e)
toegangsrechten worden periodiek geëvalueerd en worden ingetrokken wanneer deze niet langer vereist zijn.
Voor de toepassing van punt c) kent de financiële entiteit voor alle ICT-assets privileged, emergency en administrator access toe op een need-to-use- of een ad-hocbasis, en deze toegang wordt overeenkomstig artikel 34, eerste alinea, punt f), gelogd.
Voor de toepassing van punt d) gebruiken financiële entiteiten sterke authenticatiemethoden die gebaseerd zijn op maatgevende praktijken voor remote access tot het netwerk van de financiële entiteiten, voor privileged access en voor toegang tot ICT-assets waarmee kritieke of belangrijke functies worden ondersteund die publiek beschikbaar zijn.
|
Gekoppelde issues
- 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.
|