+Restrictions on Shared Groups / Accounts
---+Group Authentication
|
Restrictions on Shared Groups / Accounts
Description
Mechanisms exist to authorize the use of shared/group accounts only under certain organization-defined conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Avoid shared accounts; use individual accounts where possible
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy restricting shared account usage
∙ Individual accountability required
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal shared account policy
∙ Technical controls limiting shared account use
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ PAM for shared account management with individual accountability (e.g., CyberArk)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PAM platform (e.g., CyberArk, BeyondTrust)
∙ Shared account vaulting with individual checkout
∙ Full session recording
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.
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 authorize the use of shared/group accounts only under certain organization-defined conditions.
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. Przegląd
| Tytuł |
Norma |
|
Group Authentication
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to require individuals to be authenticated with an individual authenticator when a group authenticator is utilized.
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)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Identity & Access Management (IAM) 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
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.
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 require individuals to be authenticated with an individual authenticator when a group authenticator is utilized.
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.
|
1.1 Odwołania
1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania
1.3 Powiązane regulacje
2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania
Wymagania
| Źródło |
Wymaganie |
3. Powiązane regulacje
Regulacje
| Źródło |
Regulacja |
|
EULAW
|
Article 9 4
4. As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall:
|
(a)
|
develop and document an information security policy defining rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of data, information assets and ICT assets, including those of their customers, where applicable;
|
|
(b)
|
following a risk-based approach, establish a sound network and infrastructure management structure using appropriate techniques, methods and protocols that may include implementing automated mechanisms to isolate affected information assets in the event of cyber-attacks;
|
|
(c)
|
implement policies that limit the physical or logical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is required for legitimate and approved functions and activities only, and establish to that end a set of policies, procedures and controls that address access rights and ensure a sound administration thereof;
|
|
(d)
|
implement policies and protocols for strong authentication mechanisms, based on relevant standards and dedicated control systems, and protection measures of cryptographic keys whereby data is encrypted based on results of approved data classification and ICT risk assessment processes;
|
|
(e)
|
implement documented policies, procedures and controls for ICT change management, including changes to software, hardware, firmware components, systems or security parameters, that are based on a risk assessment approach and are an integral part of the financial entity’s overall change management process, in order to ensure that all changes to ICT systems are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, implemented and verified in a controlled manner;
|
|
(f)
|
have appropriate and comprehensive documented policies for patches and updates.
|
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (b), financial entities shall design the network connection infrastructure in a way that allows it to be instantaneously severed or segmented in order to minimise and prevent contagion, especially for interconnected financial processes.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e), the ICT change management process shall be approved by appropriate lines of management and shall have specific protocols in place.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 21 Kontrola dostępu
Artykuł 21
W ramach przeprowadzanej przez siebie kontroli praw zarządzania dostępem podmioty finansowe opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają politykę obejmującą wszystkie poniższe elementy:
a)
przyznawanie praw dostępu do zasobów ICT zgodnie z zasadami wiedzy koniecznej, potrzeby koniecznej i minimalizacji uprawnień, w tym również w kontekście dostępu zdalnego i dostępu awaryjnego;
b)
podział obowiązków w taki sposób, aby zapobiegać nieuprawnionemu dostępowi do danych krytycznych lub przeciwdziałać przyznawaniu praw dostępu, których połączenie może umożliwiać obchodzenie kontroli;
c)
uregulowanie kwestii rozliczalności użytkowników poprzez jak największe ograniczenie możliwości korzystania z generycznych i współdzielonych kont użytkownika oraz umożliwienie każdorazowego przyporządkowania działań podejmowanych w systemach ICT do konkretnych użytkowników;
d)
uregulowanie kwestii ograniczeń dostępu do zasobów ICT oraz ustanowienie kontroli i narzędzi służących zapobieganiu nieuprawnionemu dostępowi;
e)
procedury zarządzania kontem umożliwiające udzielanie, zmianę lub cofanie praw dostępu do kont użytkownika i kont generycznych, uwzględniając generyczne konta administratora, a także regulujące wszystkie poniższe kwestie:
(i)
podział ról i obowiązków w zakresie przyznawania, przeglądu i cofania praw dostępu;
(ii)
udzielanie dostępu uprzywilejowanego, dostępu awaryjnego i dostępu administratora do wszystkich systemów ICT na zasadzie potrzeby koniecznej lub na zasadzie ad hoc;
(iii)
niezwłoczne cofanie praw dostępu po rozwiązaniu stosunku pracy lub po ustaniu okoliczności uzasadniających przyznanie dostępu;
(iv)
aktualizowanie praw dostępu w przypadku konieczności wprowadzenia zmian i przynajmniej raz do roku w odniesieniu do wszystkich systemów ICT niebędących systemami ICT obsługującymi krytyczne lub istotne funkcje, a w odniesieniu do systemów ICT wspierających krytyczne lub istotne funkcje – przynajmniej raz na 6 miesięcy;
f)
metody uwierzytelniania, w tym wszystkie poniższe elementy:
(i)
stosowanie metod uwierzytelniania współmiernych do klasyfikacji ustanowionej zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554 i do ogólnego profilu ryzyka zasobów ICT, przy należytym uwzględnieniu wiodących praktyk branżowych;
(ii)
stosowanie solidnych metod uwierzytelniania zgodnie z wiodącymi praktykami i technikami branżowymi w zakresie zdalnego dostępu do sieci podmiotu finansowego, dostępu uprzywilejowanego, a także dostępu do zasobów ICT wspierających krytyczne lub istotne funkcje bądź publicznie dostępnych zasobów ICT;
g)
środki kontroli dostępu fizycznego, w tym:
(i)
identyfikowanie i rejestrowanie osób fizycznych uprawnionych do uzyskania dostępu do wskazanych przez podmiot finansowy obiektów, ośrodków przetwarzania danych i wyznaczonych obszarów wrażliwych, gdzie znajdują się zasoby ICT i zasoby informacyjne;
(ii)
przyznawanie praw dostępu fizycznego do krytycznych zasobów ICT wyłącznie upoważnionym osobom, zgodnie z zasadami wiedzy koniecznej i minimalizacji uprawnień i na zasadzie ad hoc;
(iii)
monitorowanie dostępu fizycznego do wskazanych przez podmiot finansowy obiektów, ośrodków przetwarzania danych i wyznaczonych obszarów wrażliwych, gdzie znajdują się zasoby ICT albo zasoby informacyjne, bądź zarówno zasoby ICT, jak i zasoby informacyjne;
(iv)
dokonywanie przeglądu praw dostępu fizycznego, aby zapewnić niezwłoczne cofanie zbędnych praw dostępu.
Do celów lit. e) pkt (i) podmioty finansowe określają okres zatrzymywania, uwzględniając cele biznesowe i cele w zakresie bezpieczeństwa informacji, powody zarejestrowania zdarzenia w rejestrach oraz wyniki oceny ryzyka związanego z ICT.
Do celów lit. e) pkt (ii) podmioty finansowe korzystają w miarę możliwości ze specjalnych kont do wykonywania zadań administracyjnych w ramach systemów ICT. W miarę możliwości i w stosownych przypadkach podmioty finansowe wprowadzają zautomatyzowane rozwiązania na potrzeby procesu zarządzania dostępem uprzywilejowanym.
Do celów lit. g) pkt (i) działania w zakresie identyfikowania i rejestrowania muszą być współmierne do znaczenia obiektów, ośrodków przetwarzania danych i wyznaczonych obszarów wrażliwych oraz do krytyczności prowadzonych w nich operacji lub znajdujących się w nich systemów ICT.
Do celów lit. g) pkt (iii) monitorowanie musi być współmierne do klasyfikacji ustanowionej zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554 i krytyczności obszaru, do którego uzyskuje się dostęp.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 33 Kontrola dostępu
Artykuł 33
Podmioty finansowe, o których mowa w art. 16 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554, opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają procedury kontroli logicznego i fizycznego dostępu oraz egzekwują stosowanie tych procedur, monitorują je i okresowo dokonują ich przeglądu. Procedury te zawierają następujące elementy kontroli logicznego i fizycznego dostępu:
a)
prawa dostępu do zasobów informacyjnych, zasobów ICT i wspieranych przez nie funkcji, a także do miejsc prowadzenia działalności podmiotu finansowego o znaczeniu krytycznym, zgodnie z zasadami wiedzy koniecznej, potrzeby koniecznej i minimalizacji uprawnień, w tym również w kontekście dostępu zdalnego i dostępu awaryjnego;
b)
rozliczalność użytkowników, która zapewnia możliwość identyfikacji użytkowników w odniesieniu do działań prowadzonych w systemach ICT;
c)
procedury zarządzania kontem umożliwiające udzielanie, zmianę lub cofanie praw dostępu do kont użytkownika i kont generycznych, uwzględniając generyczne konta administratora;
d)
metody uwierzytelniania współmierne do klasyfikacji, o której mowa w art. 30 ust. 1, oraz do ogólnego profilu ryzyka zasobów ICT, opartych na wiodących praktykach;
e)
prawa dostępu są okresowo weryfikowane i cofane, gdy nie są już potrzebne.
Do celów lit. c) podmiot finansowy udziela dostępu uprzywilejowanego, dostępu awaryjnego i dostępu administratora do wszystkich systemów ICT na zasadzie potrzeby koniecznej lub na zasadzie ad hoc; dostęp ten rejestruje się zgodnie z art. 34 akapit pierwszy lit. f).
Do celów lit. d) podmioty finansowe stosują solidne metody uwierzytelniania oparte na wiodących praktykach w zakresie zdalnego dostępu do sieci podmiotów finansowych, dostępu uprzywilejowanego, a także dostępu do zasobów ICT wspierających krytyczne lub istotne funkcje, które są publicznie dostępne.
|
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.
|