+Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks

Description

Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications

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

∙ TLS for all internet traffic
∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks

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

∙ Encryption-in-transit standards
∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement
∙ Certificate management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program
∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement
∙ Certificate lifecycle management

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

∙ Enterprise encryption governance program
∙ TLS 1.3+
∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi)
∙ Automated certificate 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

Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).
▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.

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.
▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN).

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 cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks.

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. Visão geral

1.1 Referências

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Regulamentos relacionados

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Regulamentos relacionados

Regulamentos
EULAW Artigo 13.o Gestão da segurança das redes

Artigo 13.o

Gestão da segurança das redes

No âmbito das salvaguardas que garantem a segurança das redes contra intrusões e a utilização abusiva de dados, as entidades financeiras devem desenvolver, documentar e aplicar políticas, procedimentos, protocolos e ferramentas em matéria de gestão da segurança das redes, incluindo todos os elementos seguintes:

a) 

A segregação e segmentação dos sistemas de TIC e redes, tendo em conta:

i) 

o caráter crítico ou a importância da função que esses sistemas de TIC e redes apoiam,

ii) 

a classificação estabelecida em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 1, do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554,

iii) 

o perfil de risco global dos ativos de TIC que utilizam esses sistemas e redes de TIC;

b) 

A documentação de todas as ligações à rede e fluxos de dados da entidade financeira;

c) 

A utilização de uma rede separada e específica para a administração dos ativos de TIC;

d) 

A identificação e implementação de controlos de acesso à rede para prevenir e detetar ligações à rede da entidade financeira por qualquer dispositivo ou sistema não autorizado ou por qualquer terminal que não cumpra os requisitos de segurança da entidade financeira;

e) 

A encriptação das ligações à rede que passem por redes empresariais, redes públicas, redes domésticas, redes de terceiros e redes sem fios, para os protocolos de comunicação utilizados, tendo em conta os resultados da classificação de dados aprovada, os resultados da avaliação do risco associado às TIC e a encriptação das ligações à rede a que se refere o artigo 6.o, n.o 2;

f) 

A conceção das redes em consonância com os requisitos de segurança das TIC estabelecidos pela entidade financeira, tendo em conta as melhores práticas para garantir a confidencialidade, integridade e disponibilidade da rede;

g) 

A segurança do tráfego de rede entre as redes internas e a Internet e outras ligações externas;

h) 

A identificação das funções e responsabilidades e das etapas para a especificação, aplicação, aprovação, alteração e revisão das regras relativas às barreiras de segurança e aos filtros de ligação;

i) 

A realização de análises da arquitetura da rede e da conceção da segurança da rede uma vez por ano, e periodicamente para as microempresas, a fim de identificar potenciais vulnerabilidades;

j) 

As medidas para isolar temporariamente, se necessário, as sub-redes e os componentes e dispositivos de rede;

k) 

A implementação de uma base de referência para a configuração segura de todos os componentes da rede e o aumento da solidez da rede e dos dispositivos de rede em consonância com as instruções do vendedor, se for caso disso, respeitando as normas aplicáveis, tal como definidas no artigo 2.o, ponto 1, do Regulamento (UE) n.o 1025/2012, e as melhores práticas;

l) 

Os procedimentos para limitar, bloquear e encerrar o sistema e as sessões à distância após um determinado período de inatividade;

m) 

Para os acordos de serviços de rede:

i) 

a identificação e especificação das medidas de segurança da informação e das TIC, dos níveis de serviço e dos requisitos de gestão de todos os serviços de rede,

ii) 

se esses serviços são prestados por um prestador de serviços de TIC intragrupo ou por terceiros prestadores de serviços de TIC.

Para efeitos da alínea h), as entidades financeiras devem proceder regularmente à revisão das regras relativas às barreiras de segurança e aos filtros de ligação, de acordo com a classificação estabelecida em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 1, do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554 e com o perfil de risco global dos sistemas de TIC envolvidos. No caso dos sistemas de TIC que suportem funções críticas ou importantes, as entidades financeiras devem verificar a adequação das regras existentes em matéria de barreiras de segurança e dos filtros de ligação, pelo menos, a cada seis meses.
EULAW Artigo 14.o Garantir a segurança das informações em trânsito
-

Pedidos ligados

Ligações
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Technology
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Authenticity / Provenance
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
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 Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Identity Compromise / Impersonation
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Intellectual Property / Trade Secret Loss
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Long-Term Confidentiality Loss from Cryptographic Obsolescence
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Authenticity / Provenance
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
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 Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Product Defect / Design Failure
blocks Harvest Now / Decrypt Later (HNDL)
blocks Cryptographic Compromise / Cryptanalytic Capability Advancement
blocks CRY-01.01B
blocks COS-08.01B
blocks COS-08.02B
blocks SSO-07.01B
blocks SSO-07.01AS
is blocked by NET-37 Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks – Assessment Procedure
blocks AC-02 Account Management
blocks AC-03 Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [L] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [L] Access Enforcement
blocks SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [L] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks AC-02 [M] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [M] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [M] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [M] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [M] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [M] Information Input Validation
blocks AC-02 [H] Account Management
blocks AC-03 [H] Access Enforcement
blocks AC-05 [H] Separation of Duties
blocks SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-04 [H] System Monitoring
blocks SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives
blocks SI-07 [H] Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
blocks SI-10 [H] Information Input Validation
  • 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.