+Threat Intelligence Program
|
Threat Intelligence Program
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement a threat intelligence program that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability that can influence the development of the system and security architectures, selection of security solutions, monitoring, threat hunting, response and recovery activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Subscribe to free threat intelligence feeds (e.g., CISA alerts)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ CISA alerts subscription
∙ Basic threat awareness program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Threat intelligence program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Threat intelligence program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Threat intelligence 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
Threat Management (THR) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with THR domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Threat management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with THR 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 THR domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Threat management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Threat management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR 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 THR domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A threat management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain THR domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of threat management operations (e.g., threat intelligence solution and bug bounty 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 THR 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 implement a threat intelligence program that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability that can influence the development of the system and security architectures, selection of security solutions, monitoring, threat hunting, response and recovery activities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Threat Management (THR) 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
1.1 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde regelingen
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde regelingen
Regelingen
| Bron |
Regelgeving |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 2 Algemene elementen van beleidslijnen, procedures, protocollen en tools voor ICT-beveiliging
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 3 ICT-risicobeheersing
Artikel 3
Financiële entiteiten ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren beleidslijnen en procedures voor ICT-beveiliging die alle volgende elementen bevatten:
a)
een vermelding van de goedkeuring van het ICT-risicotolerantieniveau dat is vastgesteld overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 8, punt b), van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554;
b)
een procedure en methode om de ICT-risicobeoordeling te maken, ten behoeve van de identificatie van:
i)
kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen die van invloed zijn of kunnen zijn op de ondersteunde bedrijfsfuncties, de ICT-systemen en ICT-assets die deze functies ondersteunen;
ii)
de kwantitatieve of kwalitatieve indicatoren om de impact en de waarschijnlijkheid van de in punt i) bedoelde kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen te meten;
c)
de procedure om maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling te identificeren, te implementeren en te documenteren voor de in kaart gebrachte en beoordeelde ICT-risico’s, met inbegrip van het vaststellen van maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling die noodzakelijk zijn om het ICT-risico binnen het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau te brengen;
d)
voor de ICT-restrisico’s die na de implementatie van de in punt c) bedoelde maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling nog aanwezig zijn:
i)
bepalingen voor het in kaart brengen van die ICT-restrisico’s;
ii)
de toewijzing van rollen en verantwoordelijkheden wat betreft:
1)
de acceptatie van de ICT-restrisico’s die het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau van de financiële entiteit overschrijden;
2)
het in punt d), iv), bedoelde evaluatieproces;
iii)
het uitwerken van een inventaris van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van een verantwoording voor het accepteren van die risico’s;
iv)
bepalingen betreffende de ten minste jaarlijks uit te voeren evaluatie van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van:
1)
het in kaart brengen van veranderingen in de ICT-restrisico’s;
2)
de beoordeling van beschikbare mitigerende maatregelen;
3)
de beoordeling van de vraag of de redenen om de ICT-restrisico’s te accepteren, nog steeds gelden en van toepassing zijn op de datum van de evaluatie;
e)
bepalingen voor het monitoren van:
i)
veranderingen in het landschap van ICT-risico en cyberdreigingen;
ii)
interne en externe kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen;
iii)
ICT-risico van de financiële entiteit waardoor veranderingen die haar ICT-risicoprofiel kunnen beïnvloeden, snel kunnen worden gedetecteerd;
f)
bepalingen over een proces waarmee veranderingen in de bedrijfsstrategie en de strategie voor digitale weerbaarheid van de financiële entiteit in aanmerking worden genomen.
Voor de toepassing van punt c) van het eerste lid zorgt de in dat punt bedoelde procedure voor:
a)
de monitoring van de doeltreffendheid van de geïmplementeerde maatregel voor ICT-risicobehandeling;
b)
de beoordeling van de vraag of de vastgestelde risicotolerantieniveaus van de financiële entiteit zijn bereikt;
c)
de beoordeling van de vraag of de financiële entiteit acties heeft ondernemen om die maatregelen zo nodig te corrigeren of te verbeteren.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 23 Detectie van afwijkende activiteiten en criteria voor detectie van en respons op ICT-incidenten
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 31 ICT-risicobeheersing
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 34 Beveiliging ICT-operaties
Artikel 34
Beveiliging ICT-operaties
De in artikel 16, lid 1, van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554 bedoelde financiële entiteiten doen, als onderdeel van hun systemen, protocollen en tools, en voor alle ICT-assets het volgende:
a)
zij monitoren en beheersen de levenscyclus van alle ICT-assets;
b)
zij monitoren of de ICT-assets worden ondersteund door derde aanbieders van ICT-diensten van financiële entiteiten (in voorkomend geval);
c)
zij identificeren capaciteitsvereisten van hun ICT-assets en maatregelen om de beschikbaarheid en efficiëntie van ICT-systemen in stand te houden en te verbeteren, en voorkomen tekorten aan ICT-capaciteit voordat deze zich voordoen;
d)
zij voeren geautomatiseerde kwetsbaarheidsscans en beoordelingen van ICT-assets uit die in verhouding staan tot de in artikel 30, lid 1, bedoelde classificatie daarvan en tot het algemene risicoprofiel van het ICT-asset, en rollen patches uit om geconstateerde kwetsbaarheden te verhelpen;
e)
zij beheersen de risico’s verbonden aan verouderde, niet-ondersteunde of legacy ICT-assets;
f)
zij loggen events met betrekking tot logische en fysieke toegangscontrole, ICT-operaties, met inbegrip van systeemactiviteiten en netwerkverkeer, en ICT-wijzigingsbeheer;
g)
zij identificeren en implementeren maatregelen om informatie over afwijkende activiteiten en gedragingen te monitoren en te analyseren voor kritieke of belangrijke ICT-operaties:
h)
zij implementeren maatregelen om relevante en actuele informatie over cyberdreigingen te monitoren;
i)
zij implementeren maatregelen voor het identificeren van mogelijke informatielekken, malware en andere beveiligingsdreigingen, en publiek bekende kwetsbaarheden van software en hardware, en controleren op de beschikbaarheid van overeenkomstige nieuwe beveiligingsupdates.
Voor de toepassing van punt f) stemmen financiële entiteiten de mate van detail van de logs af op het doel ervan en het gebruik van het ICT-asset dat deze logbestanden genereert.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 Scholing en ontwikkeling
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 45 Regelingen voor uitwisseling van informatie en inlichtingen over cyberdreiging
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 13 1
1. Financial entities shall have in place capabilities and staff to gather information on vulnerabilities and cyber threats, ICT-related incidents, in particular cyber-attacks, and analyse the impact they are likely to have on their digital operational resilience.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 1
1. Financial entities may exchange amongst themselves cyber threat information and intelligence, including indicators of compromise, tactics, techniques, and procedures, cyber security alerts and configuration tools, to the extent that such information and intelligence sharing:
|
(a)
|
aims to enhance the digital operational resilience of financial entities, in particular through raising awareness in relation to cyber threats, limiting or impeding the cyber threats’ ability to spread, supporting defence capabilities, threat detection techniques, mitigation strategies or response and recovery stages;
|
|
(b)
|
takes places within trusted communities of financial entities;
|
|
(c)
|
is implemented through information-sharing arrangements that protect the potentially sensitive nature of the information shared, and that are governed by rules of conduct in full respect of business confidentiality, protection of personal data in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and guidelines on competition policy.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, point (c), the information-sharing arrangements shall define the conditions for participation and, where appropriate, shall set out the details on the involvement of public authorities and the capacity in which they may be associated to the information-sharing arrangements, on the involvement of ICT third-party service providers, and on operational elements, including the use of dedicated IT platforms.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 45 3
3. Financial entities shall notify competent authorities of their participation in the information-sharing arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, upon validation of their membership, or, as applicable, of the cessation of their membership, once it takes effect.
|
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.
|