+Endpoint Protection Mechanisms
---+Centralized Management of Endpoint Protection Mechanisms
---+Automatic Endpoint Protection Mechanism Updates
---+Evolving Endpoint Protection Threats
---+Binary or Machine-Executable Code
|
Endpoint Protection Mechanisms
Description
Mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of endpoint devices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management (CM) program
∙ Change control program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management (CM) program
∙ Change control program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management (CM) program
∙ Change control program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management (CM) program
∙ Change control program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management (CM) program
∙ Change control 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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Endpoint devices containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information at rest (e.g., full drive encryption).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint 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.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of endpoint devices.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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
Endpoint Security (END) 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. Przegląd
| Tytuł |
Norma |
|
Centralized Management of Endpoint Protection Mechanisms
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage endpoint protection-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Anti-spam/phishing technologies are centralized and built into existing email capabilities.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint 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.
▪ Anti-spam/phishing technologies are centralized and built into existing email capabilities.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 centrally manage anti-phishing and spam protection technologies.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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.
|
|
Automatic Endpoint Protection Mechanism Updates
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to update endpoint protection-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) when new releases are available, in accordance with organization-defined configuration and change management practices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Anti-spam/phishing technologies are centralized and built into existing email capabilities.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint 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.
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to automatically update.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 automatically update anti-phishing and spam protection technologies when new releases are available in accordance with configuration and change management practices.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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.
|
|
Evolving Endpoint Protection Threats
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform periodic evaluations evolving threats to endpoints that are generally not considered to be commonly affected by malicious software.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antivirus/antimalware software
∙ Keep OS updated
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Endpoint protection platform (e.g., Windows Defender)
∙ Patch management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ EDR solution (e.g., CrowdStrike Falcon Go)
∙ Centralized endpoint management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise EDR/EPP (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ MDM/UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise EDR/XDR platform (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne)
∙ UEM (e.g., Microsoft Intune, JAMF)
∙ Zero-trust endpoint controls
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint 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.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are centralized, deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are configured to generate event logs that can be centrally-reviewed (e.g., forwarded to a SIEM).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to provide real-time protection (e.g., always on).
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 perform periodic evaluations evolving malware threats to assess systems that are generally not considered to be commonly affected by malicious software.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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.
|
|
Binary or Machine-Executable Code
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prohibit the use of binary or machine-executable code from sources with limited or no warranty and without access to source code.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint 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.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management 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 END 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 prohibit the use of binary or machine-executable code from sources with limited or no warranty and without access to source code.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 Odwołania
1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania
1.3 Powiązane regulacje
2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania
Wymagania
| Źródło |
Wymaganie |
3. Powiązane regulacje
Regulacje
| Źródło |
Regulacja |
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 11 Bezpieczeństwo danych i systemów
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 35 Bezpieczeństwo danych, systemu i sieci
Artykuł 35
Bezpieczeństwo danych, systemu i sieci
Podmioty finansowe, o których mowa w art. 16 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554, w ramach swoich systemów, protokołów i narzędzi opracowują i wdrażają zabezpieczenia chroniące sieci przed włamaniami i wykorzystaniem danych niezgodnie z przeznaczeniem i przyczyniające się do zachowania dostępności, autentyczności, integralności i poufności danych. W szczególności podmioty finansowe, uwzględniając klasyfikację, o której mowa w art. 30 ust. 1 niniejszego rozporządzenia, ustanawiają wszystkie następujące elementy:
a)
określenie i wdrożenie środków ochrony danych wykorzystywanych, przesyłanych i przechowywanych;
b)
określenie i wdrożenie środków bezpieczeństwa dotyczących korzystania z oprogramowania, nośników danych, systemów i urządzeń końcowych wykorzystywanych do przesyłania i przechowywania danych podmiotu finansowego;
c)
określenie i wdrożenie środków mających na celu zapobieganie i wykrywanie nieuprawnionych połączeń z siecią podmiotu finansowego oraz zabezpieczenie ruchu między sieciami wewnętrznymi podmiotu finansowego a internetem i innymi połączeniami zewnętrznymi;
d)
określenie i wdrożenie środków zapewniających dostępność, autentyczność, integralność i poufność danych podczas transmisji w sieci;
e)
proces bezpiecznego usuwania danych znajdujących się w obiektach podmiotu finansowego lub przechowywanych na zewnątrz, których podmiot finansowy nie musi już gromadzić ani przechowywać;
f)
proces bezpiecznego pozbywania się lub wycofywania z eksploatacji urządzeń do przechowywania danych w obiektach lub przechowywanych na zewnątrz urządzeń do przechowywania danych, które zawierają informacje poufne;
g)
określenie i wdrożenie środków służących zapewnieniu, aby telepraca i korzystanie z prywatnych urządzeń końcowych nie miały negatywnego wpływu na zdolność podmiotu finansowego do prowadzenia działalności krytycznej w odpowiedni, terminowy i bezpieczny sposób.
|
Powiązane zgłoszenia
- 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.
|