+Human Reviews

Human Reviews

Description

Mechanisms exist to enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Human review of flagged data transfers

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Policy requiring human review of sensitive data transfers

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Human review process for cross-boundary data transfers
∙ DLP alert review procedures

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ DLP alert triage workflow with human review
∙ Dedicated review team

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise DLP with human review workflow (SOC integration)
∙ SOAR-assisted triage
∙ 24/7 human review for critical transfers

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

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 enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis.

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. Przegląd

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane regulacje

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania

3. Powiązane regulacje

Regulacje
EULAW Artykuł 13 Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

Artykuł 13

Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

Przy wprowadzaniu zabezpieczeń zapewniających ochronę sieci przed włamaniami i wykorzystaniem danych niezgodnie z przeznaczeniem podmioty finansowe opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają polityki, procedury, protokoły i narzędzia w zakresie zarządzania bezpieczeństwem sieci obejmujące wszystkie następujące elementy:

a) 

segregację i segmentację systemów i sieci ICT z uwzględnieniem:

(i) 

krytyczności lub istotności funkcji, którą te systemy i sieci ICT wspierają;

(ii) 

klasyfikacji ustanowionej zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554;

(iii) 

ogólnego profilu ryzyka związanego z zasobami ICT wykorzystującymi te systemy i sieci ICT;

b) 

dokumentację wszystkich połączeń sieciowych i przepływów danych podmiotu finansowego;

c) 

wykorzystanie odrębnej i wyspecjalizowanej sieci do administrowania zasobami ICT;

d) 

określenie i wdrożenie kontroli dostępu do sieci w celu zapobiegania podłączaniu do sieci podmiotu finansowego za pomocą jakiegokolwiek nieuprawnionego urządzenia lub systemu lub jakiegokolwiek punktu końcowego niespełniającego wymogów bezpieczeństwa podmiotu finansowego oraz wykrywania takich przypadków;

e) 

szyfrowanie połączeń sieciowych przechodzących przez sieci korporacyjne, sieci publiczne, sieci krajowe, sieci podmiotów zewnętrznych i sieci bezprzewodowe do celów wykorzystywanych protokołów komunikacyjnych, z uwzględnieniem wyników zatwierdzonej klasyfikacji danych, wyników oceny ryzyka związanego z ICT oraz szyfrowania połączeń sieciowych, o których mowa w art. 6 ust. 2;

f) 

projektowanie sieci zgodnie z wymogami bezpieczeństwa ICT ustanowionymi przez podmiot finansowy, z uwzględnieniem wiodących praktyk w celu zapewnienia poufności, integralności i dostępności sieci;

g) 

zabezpieczenie ruchu w sieci między sieciami wewnętrznymi a internetem i innymi połączeniami zewnętrznymi;

h) 

określenie ról i obowiązków oraz etapów specyfikacji, wdrożenia, zatwierdzenia, zmiany i przeglądu reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń;

i) 

przeprowadzanie przeglądów architektury sieci i struktury bezpieczeństwa sieci raz w roku, a w przypadku mikroprzedsiębiorstw – okresowo, w celu zidentyfikowania potencjalnych podatności;

j) 

środki tymczasowego izolowania, w razie potrzeby, podsieci oraz elementów i urządzeń sieci;

k) 

wdrożenie bezpiecznego poziomu bazowego konfiguracji wszystkich elementów sieci oraz umacnianie sieci i urządzeń sieciowych zgodnie z wszelkimi instrukcjami dostawcy, w stosownych przypadkach, normami w rozumieniu art. 2 pkt 1 rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1025/2012 oraz wiodącymi praktykami;

l) 

procedury ograniczania, blokowania i zamykania systemu oraz sesji zdalnych po upływie określonego okresu braku aktywności;

m) 

w odniesieniu do umów o świadczenie usług sieciowych:

(i) 

identyfikację i specyfikację środków bezpieczeństwa ICT i informacji, poziomów usług i wymogów w zakresie zarządzania w odniesieniu do wszystkich usług sieciowych;

(ii) 

wskazanie, czy usługi te są świadczone przez dostawcę usług ICT wewnątrz grupy czy przez zewnętrznych dostawców usług ICT.

Do celów lit. h) podmioty finansowe regularnie przeprowadzają przegląd reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń zgodnie z klasyfikacją ustanowioną zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554 oraz ogólnym profilem ryzyka odpowiednich systemów ICT. W przypadku systemów ICT, które wspierają krytyczne lub istotne funkcje, podmioty finansowe weryfikują adekwatność obowiązujących reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń co najmniej raz na sześć miesięcy.

Powiązane zgłoszenia

Powiązania
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 05
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
is blocked by NET-04.2 Human Reviews – Assessment Procedure
blocks AC-04(09) Human Reviews
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.