+Access To Critical Systems
---+Lockable Physical Casings
|
Access To Critical Systems
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Locked server closet/cabinet separate from general office access
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Locked server room with access limited to named IT staff
∙ Separate key or badge level for critical systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Badge-controlled server room with dedicated access group
∙ Locked racks for critical systems
∙ Access log review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data center / server room access restricted by PACS zone
∙ Locked cabinets or cages for critical and regulated systems
∙ Video surveillance of critical areas
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data center access control with multi-factor entry (badge + biometric/PIN)
∙ Caged or locked racks for critical systems
∙ Continuous access log monitoring
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Przegląd
| Tytuł |
Norma |
|
Lockable Physical Casings
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Lockable cabinet for network/server equipment
∙ Kensington-style locks for shared devices
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Lockable server racks and network cabinets
∙ Tamper-evident seals on critical devices
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Locked racks in server room with key control
∙ Chassis locks and tamper-evident seals
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Locked cabinets/cages for all critical infrastructure
∙ Chassis intrusion detection enabled
∙ Tamper-evident seals with periodic inspection
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise rack-level access control with electronic locks and audit logs
∙ Chassis intrusion detection integrated with SIEM
∙ Tamper inspection 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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities 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 physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 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.
|
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.
|