+Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
---+External System Connections
---+Internal System Connections
|
Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to authorize connections from systems to other systems using Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs), or similar methods, that document, for each interconnection:
(1) Interface characteristics;
(2) Security, compliance and resilience requirements; and;
(3) The nature of the information communicated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA)
∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA)
∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA)
∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA)
∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA)
∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA)
∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA)
∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA)
∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA)
∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA)
∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA)
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.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security 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 network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to authorize connections from systems to other systems using Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs), or similar methods, that document, for each interconnection:
(1) Interface characteristics;
(2) Security, compliance and resilience requirements; and;
(3) The nature of the information communicated.
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 |
|
External System Connections
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prohibit the direct connection of a sensitive system to an external network without the use of an organization-defined boundary protection device.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document authorized external system connections
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ External connection inventory
∙ Connection approval policy
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal external system connection management process
∙ Connection authorization records
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ External connection governance program
∙ Automated connection inventory
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise external connection governance platform
∙ Automated discovery and authorization of external connections
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.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security 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 network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the direct connection of a sensitive system to an external network without the use of an organization-defined boundary protection device.
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.
|
|
Internal System Connections
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to control internal system connections through authorizing internal connections of systems and documenting, for each internal connection, the interface characteristics, security requirements and the nature of the information communicated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document authorized internal system connections
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Internal network connection documentation
∙ Connection authorization process
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal internal connection management policy
∙ Network topology documentation
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise CMDB with internal connection mapping
∙ Automated network topology discovery
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise CMDB (e.g., ServiceNow)
∙ Automated network discovery (e.g., Nmap, SolarWinds)
∙ Connection governance 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
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.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security 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 network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator).
▪ 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 NET 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 principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to control internal system connections through authorizing internal connections of systems and documenting, for each internal connection, the interface characteristics, security requirements and the nature of the information communicated.
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.
|
1.1 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde regelingen
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde regelingen
Regelingen
| Bron |
Regelgeving |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 Beheer van netwerkbeveiliging
Artikel 13
Beheer van netwerkbeveiliging
Als onderdeel van de beschermingsmaatregelen die netwerken tegen inbraken en misbruik van gegevens moeten beveiligen, ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren financiële entiteiten beleidslijnen, procedures, protocollen en tools voor het beheer van netwerkbeveiliging, die alle volgende elementen bevatten:
a)
de scheiding en segmentatie van ICT-systemen en -netwerken, rekening houdende met:
i)
het kritieke karakter of belang van de functie die door deze ICT-systemen en -netwerken wordt ondersteund;
ii)
de overeenkomstig artikel 8, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 vastgestelde classificatie;
iii)
het algemene risicoprofiel van ICT-assets die van die ICT-systemen en -netwerken gebruikmaken;
b)
de documentatie van alle netwerkverbindingen en gegevensstromen van de financiële entiteit;
c)
het gebruik van een apart en specifiek netwerk voor het beheer van die ICT-assets;
d)
de identificatie en implementatie van controles op netwerktoegang voor het voorkomen en detecteren van verbindingen met het netwerk door een ongeautoriseerd apparaat of systeem, of van endpoints die niet voldoen aan de beveiligingseisen van de financiële entiteit;
e)
de encryptie van netwerkverbindingen die over bedrijfsnetwerken, publieke netwerken, thuisnetwerken, netwerken van derde partijen en draadloze netwerken lopen, voor gebruikte communicatieprotocollen, rekening houdende met de uitkomsten van de goedgekeurde dataclassificatie, de uitkomsten van de ICT-risicobeoordeling en de encryptie van netwerkverbindingen als bedoeld in artikel 6, lid 2;
f)
de opzet van netwerken in lijn met de ICT-beveiligingseisen die door de financiële entiteit zijn vastgesteld, rekening houdende met maatgevende praktijken om de vertrouwelijkheid, integriteit en beschikbaarheid van het netwerk te borgen;
g)
de beveiliging van netwerkverkeer tussen de interne netwerken en de internet- en andere externe verbindingen;
h)
het in kaart brengen van de rollen, verantwoordelijkheden en stappen voor de specificatie, implementatie, goedkeuring, wijziging en evaluatie van firewallregels en verbindingsfilters;
i)
het uitvoeren van evaluaties van de netwerkarchitectuur en van de inrichting van de netwerkbeveiliging eenmaal per jaar, en op periodieke basis voor micro-ondernemingen, om potentiële kwetsbaarheden in beeld te brengen;
j)
de maatregelen om, waar nodig, subnetwerken en netwerkcomponenten en apparaten tijdelijk te isoleren;
k)
de implementatie van een veilige configuratiebaseline van alle netwerkcomponenten en van de hardening van het netwerk en netwerkapparaten in lijn met eventuele instructies van de verkoper en, in voorkomend geval, toepasselijke normen zoals gedefinieerd in artikel 2, punt 1), van Verordening (EU) nr. 1025/2012, en maatgevende praktijken;
l)
de procedures om systeemsessies en externe sessies na een gespecificeerde periode van inactiviteit te beperken, te vergrendelen en te beëindigen;
m)
voor overeenkomsten inzake netwerkdiensten:
i)
de identificatie en specificatie van ICT- en informatiebeveiligingsmaatregelen, service levels en beheersvereisten voor alle netwerkdiensten;
ii)
de vraag of die diensten worden verricht door een intragroepsaanbieder van ICT-diensten of door derde aanbieders van ICT-diensten.
Voor de toepassing van punt h) voeren financiële entiteiten de evaluatie van firewallregels en verbindingsfilters op regelmatige basis uit in overeenstemming met de overeenkomstig artikel 8, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 vastgestelde classificatie en het algemene risicoprofiel van de betrokken ICT-systemen. Voor ICT-systemen die kritieke of belangrijke functies ondersteunen, gaan financiële entiteiten ten minste om de zes maanden na of de bestaande firewallregels en verbindingsfilters afdoende 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.
|