+Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
|
Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing)
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use sandbox environment for testing suspicious files/code
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Sandbox analysis tool (e.g., Any.run, free tiers)
∙ Isolation policy for suspicious activity
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Dynamic sandboxing solution (e.g., Cuckoo Sandbox)
∙ Network isolation for suspected threats
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise sandbox platform (e.g., Palo Alto WildFire, Cisco Threat Grid)
∙ Automated isolation workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sandboxing and dynamic isolation platform
∙ Automated containment via SOAR
∙ Network quarantine capabilities
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 automatically dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application.
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
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regulamentos relacionados
Regulamentos
| Fonte |
Regulamentação |
|
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.
|
Pedidos ligados
- 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.
|