+Digital & Non-Digital Media Disposal
---+Dual Authorization for Sensitive / Regulated Data Destruction
|
Digital & Non-Digital Media Disposal
Description
Mechanisms exist to securely dispose of, destroy and/or erase digital and non-digital media when it is no longer required, using organization-defined procedures.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Shred-it (https://shredit.com)
∙ IronMountain (https://ironmountain.com)
∙ BitRaser (https://bitraser.com)
∙ DBAN (https://dban.org)
∙ DoD-strength data erasers
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ The data retention process is manual and IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to manage the process.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to dispose of, destroy, erase, and/or anonymize sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 securely dispose of, destroy or erase information.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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. Visão geral
| Título |
Norma |
|
Dual Authorization for Sensitive / Regulated Data Destruction
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enforce dual authorization for the destruction, disposal or sanitization of digital media that contains sensitive and/or regulated data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Logical Access Control (LAC)
∙ Physical Access Control (PAC)
∙ Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
∙ Separation of Duties (SoD)
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 enforce dual authorization for the destruction, disposal or sanitization of digital media that contains sensitive/regulated data.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 Referências
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulamentos relacionados
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regulamentos relacionados
Regulamentos
| Fonte |
Regulamentação |
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 11.o Segurança dos dados e do sistema
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 11.o Segurança dos dados e do sistema
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 35.o Segurança dos dados, dos sistemas e das redes
Artigo 35.o
Segurança dos dados, dos sistemas e das redes
As entidades financeiras a que se refere o artigo 16.o, n.o 1, do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554 devem, no âmbito dos seus sistemas, protocolos e ferramentas, desenvolver e aplicar salvaguardas que garantam a segurança das redes contra intrusões e a utilização indevida de dados e que preservem a disponibilidade, autenticidade, integridade e confidencialidade dos dados. Em especial, as entidades financeiras, tendo em conta a classificação a que se refere o artigo 30.o, n.o 1, do presente regulamento, devem estabelecer todos os elementos seguintes:
a)
A identificação e aplicação de medidas de proteção dos dados em uso, em trânsito e inativos;
b)
A identificação e aplicação de medidas de segurança relativas à utilização de software, a suportes de armazenamento de dados, bem como a sistemas e dispositivos terminais que transferem e armazenam dados da entidade financeira;
c)
A identificação e implementação de medidas para prevenir e detetar ligações não autorizadas à rede da entidade financeira e para proteger o tráfego na rede entre as redes internas da entidade financeira e a Internet e outras ligações externas;
d)
A identificação e aplicação de medidas que garantam a disponibilidade, autenticidade, integridade e confidencialidade dos dados durante as transmissões da rede;
e)
Um processo de apagamento seguro de dados nas instalações ou armazenados externamente, que a entidade financeira já não tenha necessidade de recolher ou armazenar;
f)
Um processo de eliminação ou desativação segura de dispositivos de armazenamento de dados nas instalações ou de dispositivos de armazenamento de dados armazenados externamente que contenham informações confidenciais;
g)
A identificação e aplicação de medidas destinadas a assegurar que o teletrabalho e a utilização de dispositivos terminais privados não afetam negativamente a capacidade da entidade financeira para exercer as suas atividades críticas de forma adequada, atempada e segura.
|
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.
|