+Incident Response Plan (IRP)
---+Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 maintain and make available a current and viable Incident Response Plan (IRP) to all stakeholders.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 |
|
Incident Response Plan (IRP) Update
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ On at least an annual basis, IT and/or cybersecurity personnel update incident response strategies to keep current with business needs, technology changes and regulatory requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 regularly review and modify incident response practices to incorporate lessons learned, business process changes and industry developments, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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 22.o Política de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
Artigo 22.o
Política de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
No âmbito dos mecanismos de deteção de atividades anómalas, incluindo problemas de desempenho das redes de TIC e incidentes relacionados com as TIC, as entidades financeiras devem desenvolver, documentar e aplicar uma política em matéria de incidentes relacionados com as TIC através da qual devem:
a)
Documentar o processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC a que se refere o artigo 17.o do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
Estabelecer uma lista de contactos pertinentes com funções internas e partes interessadas externas diretamente envolvidas na segurança das operações de TIC, nomeadamente no que respeita:
i)
à deteção e monitorização de ciberameaças,
ii)
à deteção de atividades anómalas,
iii)
à gestão das vulnerabilidades;
c)
Estabelecer, aplicar e operar mecanismos técnicos, organizativos e operacionais para apoiar o processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC, incluindo mecanismos que permitam a rápida deteção de atividades e comportamentos anómalos, em conformidade com o artigo 23.o do presente regulamento;
▼C1
d)
Conservar todos os elementos de prova relativos a incidentes relacionados com as TIC durante um período que não exceda o necessário para as finalidades para as quais os dados são recolhidos, proporcionada à criticalidade das funções operacionais, dos processos de apoio e dos ativos de TIC e de informação afetados, em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 2, do Regulamento Delegado (UE) 2024/1772 da Comissão (
2
) e com qualquer requisito de conservação aplicável nos termos do direito da União;
▼B
e)
Estabelecer e aplicar mecanismos para analisar incidentes e padrões significativos ou recorrentes relacionados com as TIC em termos de número e da ocorrência de incidentes relacionados com as TIC.
Para efeitos da alínea d), as entidades financeiras devem conservar os elementos de prova referidos nessa alínea de forma segura.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 22.o Política de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
Artigo 22.o
Política de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
No âmbito dos mecanismos de deteção de atividades anómalas, incluindo problemas de desempenho das redes de TIC e incidentes relacionados com as TIC, as entidades financeiras devem desenvolver, documentar e aplicar uma política em matéria de incidentes relacionados com as TIC através da qual devem:
a)
Documentar o processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC a que se refere o artigo 17.o do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
Estabelecer uma lista de contactos pertinentes com funções internas e partes interessadas externas diretamente envolvidas na segurança das operações de TIC, nomeadamente no que respeita:
i)
à deteção e monitorização de ciberameaças,
ii)
à deteção de atividades anómalas,
iii)
à gestão das vulnerabilidades;
c)
Estabelecer, aplicar e operar mecanismos técnicos, organizativos e operacionais para apoiar o processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC, incluindo mecanismos que permitam a rápida deteção de atividades e comportamentos anómalos, em conformidade com o artigo 23.o do presente regulamento;
▼C1
d)
Conservar todos os elementos de prova relativos a incidentes relacionados com as TIC durante um período que não exceda o necessário para as finalidades para as quais os dados são recolhidos, proporcionada à criticalidade das funções operacionais, dos processos de apoio e dos ativos de TIC e de informação afetados, em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 2, do Regulamento Delegado (UE) 2024/1772 da Comissão (
2
) e com qualquer requisito de conservação aplicável nos termos do direito da União;
▼B
e)
Estabelecer e aplicar mecanismos para analisar incidentes e padrões significativos ou recorrentes relacionados com as TIC em termos de número e da ocorrência de incidentes relacionados com as TIC.
Para efeitos da alínea d), as entidades financeiras devem conservar os elementos de prova referidos nessa alínea de forma segura.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 17.o Processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 17.o Processo de gestão de incidentes relacionados com as TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 1
1. Financial entities shall define, establish and implement an ICT-related incident management process to detect, manage and notify ICT-related incidents.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 2
2. Financial entities shall record all ICT-related incidents and significant cyber threats. Financial entities shall establish appropriate procedures and processes to ensure a consistent and integrated monitoring, handling and follow-up of ICT-related incidents, to ensure that root causes are identified, documented and addressed in order to prevent the occurrence of such incidents.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 17 3
3. The ICT-related incident management process referred to in paragraph 1 shall:
|
(a)
|
put in place early warning indicators;
|
|
(b)
|
establish procedures to identify, track, log, categorise and classify ICT-related incidents according to their priority and severity and according to the criticality of the services impacted, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 18(1);
|
|
(c)
|
assign roles and responsibilities that need to be activated for different ICT-related incident types and scenarios;
|
|
(d)
|
set out plans for communication to staff, external stakeholders and media in accordance with Article 14 and for notification to clients, for internal escalation procedures, including ICT-related customer complaints, as well as for the provision of information to financial entities that act as counterparts, as appropriate;
|
|
(e)
|
ensure that at least major ICT-related incidents are reported to relevant senior management and inform the management body of at least major ICT-related incidents, explaining the impact, response and additional controls to be established as a result of such ICT-related incidents;
|
|
(f)
|
establish ICT-related incident response procedures to mitigate impacts and ensure that services become operational and secure in a timely manner.
|
|
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.
|