+Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)
|
Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of risk-based vulnerability management capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning solution).
▪ 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 VPM 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 facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
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 21.o Medidas de gestão dos riscos de cibersegurança
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 3.o Gestão do risco associado às TIC
Artigo 3.o
Gestão do risco associado às TIC
As entidades financeiras devem desenvolver, documentar e aplicar políticas e procedimentos de gestão do risco associado às TIC que incluam todos os elementos seguintes:
a)
Uma indicação da aprovação do nível de tolerância ao risco associado às TIC estabelecido em conformidade com o artigo 6.o, n.o 8, alínea b), do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
Um procedimento e uma metodologia para realizar a avaliação do risco associado às TIC, que identifiquem:
i)
as vulnerabilidades e ameaças que afetem ou possam afetar as funções operacionais apoiadas, os sistemas de TIC e os ativos de TIC que apoiam essas funções,
ii)
os indicadores quantitativos ou qualitativos para medir o impacto e a probabilidade das vulnerabilidades e ameaças referidas na subalínea i);
c)
O procedimento para identificar, aplicar e documentar medidas de tratamento do risco associado às TIC para os riscos associados às TIC identificados e avaliados, designadamente a determinação das medidas de tratamento do risco associado às TIC necessárias para manter esse risco dentro do nível de tolerância referido na alínea a);
d)
Para os riscos residuais associados às TIC que ainda estejam presentes na sequência da aplicação das medidas de tratamento do risco associado às TIC referido na alínea c):
i)
disposições relativas à identificação desses riscos residuais associados às TIC,
ii)
a atribuição de funções e responsabilidades no que respeita:
(1)
à aceitação dos riscos residuais associados às TIC que excedem o nível de tolerância ao risco da entidade financeira referido na alínea a);
(2)
ao processo de revisão referido na subalínea iv) da presente alínea d);
iii)
a elaboração de um inventário dos riscos residuais associados às TIC aceites, incluindo uma justificação para a sua aceitação,
iv)
disposições relativas à revisão dos riscos residuais associados às TIC aceites, pelo menos uma vez por ano, nomeadamente:
(1)
a identificação de quaisquer alterações dos riscos residuais associados às TIC;
(2)
a avaliação das medidas de mitigação disponíveis;
(3)
uma avaliação para determinar se as razões que justificam a aceitação dos riscos residuais associados às TIC continuam a ser válidas e aplicáveis à data da revisão;
e)
Disposições relativas à monitorização:
i)
de quaisquer alterações do panorama dos riscos associados às TIC e das ciberameaças,
ii)
das vulnerabilidades e ameaças internas e externas,
iii)
do risco associado às TIC da entidade financeira, de um modo que permita a deteção rápida de alterações que possam afetar o seu perfil de risco associado às TIC;
f)
Disposições relativas a um processo para assegurar que quaisquer alterações da estratégia empresarial e da estratégia de resiliência operacional digital da entidade financeira são tidas em conta.
Para efeitos da alínea c), primeiro parágrafo, o procedimento referido nessa alínea deve assegurar:
a)
A monitorização da eficácia das medidas de tratamento do risco associado às TIC aplicadas;
b)
Uma avaliação para determinar se os níveis de tolerância ao risco estabelecidos pela entidade financeira foram atingidos;
c)
Uma avaliação para determinar se a entidade financeira tomou medidas para corrigir ou melhorar essas medidas, quando necessário.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 10.o Gestão das vulnerabilidades e correções informáticas
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 10.o Gestão das vulnerabilidades e correções informáticas
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 10.o Gestão das vulnerabilidades e correções informáticas
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 10.o Gestão das vulnerabilidades e correções informáticas
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 10.o Gestão das vulnerabilidades e correções informáticas
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 31.o Gestão do risco associado às TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 34.o Segurança das operações de TIC
Artigo 34.o
Segurança das operações de TIC
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, e em relação a todos os ativos de TIC:
a)
Acompanhar e gerir o ciclo de vida de todos os ativos de TIC;
b)
Verificar se os ativos de TIC são apoiados por terceiros prestadores de serviços de TIC de entidades financeiras, se for caso disso;
c)
Identificar as necessidades de capacidade dos seus ativos de TIC e as medidas para manter e melhorar a disponibilidade e a eficiência dos sistemas de TIC e evitar défices de capacidade das TIC antes da sua ocorrência;
d)
Realizar análises automatizadas das vulnerabilidades e avaliações de ativos de TIC proporcionadas à sua classificação, tal como referido no artigo 30.o, n.o 1, e ao perfil de risco global do ativo de TIC, bem como aplicar correções para resolver as vulnerabilidades identificadas;
e)
Gerir os riscos relacionados com ativos de TIC obsoletos, não apoiados ou legados;
f)
Registar eventos relacionados com o controlo lógico e físico do acesso e com as operações de TIC, incluindo atividades de tráfego nos sistemas e redes e a gestão de alterações das TIC;
g)
Identificar e aplicar medidas para monitorizar e analisar informações sobre atividades e comportamentos anómalos em operações críticas ou importantes no domínio das TIC;
h)
Aplicar medidas para monitorizar informações pertinentes e atualizadas sobre as ciberameaças;
i)
Aplicar medidas para identificar possíveis fugas de informação, códigos maliciosos e outras ameaças à segurança, bem como vulnerabilidades do conhecimento público em software e hardware, e verificar se existem novas atualizações de segurança correspondentes.
Para efeitos da alínea f), as entidades financeiras devem alinhar o nível de pormenor dos registos com a sua finalidade e a utilização do ativo de TIC que dá origem a esses registos.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 9.o Proteção e prevenção
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 25.o Teste dos sistemas e ferramentas no domínio das TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 9 4
4. As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall:
|
(a)
|
develop and document an information security policy defining rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of data, information assets and ICT assets, including those of their customers, where applicable;
|
|
(b)
|
following a risk-based approach, establish a sound network and infrastructure management structure using appropriate techniques, methods and protocols that may include implementing automated mechanisms to isolate affected information assets in the event of cyber-attacks;
|
|
(c)
|
implement policies that limit the physical or logical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is required for legitimate and approved functions and activities only, and establish to that end a set of policies, procedures and controls that address access rights and ensure a sound administration thereof;
|
|
(d)
|
implement policies and protocols for strong authentication mechanisms, based on relevant standards and dedicated control systems, and protection measures of cryptographic keys whereby data is encrypted based on results of approved data classification and ICT risk assessment processes;
|
|
(e)
|
implement documented policies, procedures and controls for ICT change management, including changes to software, hardware, firmware components, systems or security parameters, that are based on a risk assessment approach and are an integral part of the financial entity’s overall change management process, in order to ensure that all changes to ICT systems are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, implemented and verified in a controlled manner;
|
|
(f)
|
have appropriate and comprehensive documented policies for patches and updates.
|
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (b), financial entities shall design the network connection infrastructure in a way that allows it to be instantaneously severed or segmented in order to minimise and prevent contagion, especially for interconnected financial processes.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e), the ICT change management process shall be approved by appropriate lines of management and shall have specific protocols in place.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 1
1. The digital operational resilience testing programme referred to in Article 24 shall provide, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 4(2), for the execution of appropriate tests, such as vulnerability assessments and scans, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses, physical security reviews, questionnaires and scanning software solutions, source code reviews where feasible, scenario-based tests, compatibility testing, performance testing, end-to-end testing and penetration testing.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 2
2. Central securities depositories and central counterparties shall perform vulnerability assessments before any deployment or redeployment of new or existing applications and infrastructure components, and ICT services supporting critical or important functions of the financial entity.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 25 3
3. Microenterprises shall perform the tests referred to in paragraph 1 by combining a risk-based approach with a strategic planning of ICT testing, by duly considering the need to maintain a balanced approach between the scale of resources and the time to be allocated to the ICT testing provided for in this Article, on the one hand, and the urgency, type of risk, criticality of information assets and of services provided, as well as any other relevant factor, including the financial entity’s ability to take calculated risks, on the other hand.
|
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.
|