+Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
---+Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)
|
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
Description
Mechanisms exist for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic business continuity plan
∙ Regular data backup
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Business continuity plan
∙ Tested backup and restore procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal BCP/DRP program
∙ Regular backup testing
∙ Alternate processing capability
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise BCP/DRP program
∙ DR site
∙ Annual exercises
∙ RTO/RPO targets
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise BC/DR platform (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Enterprise)
∙ Dedicated DR site
∙ Automated failover
∙ Annual DR exercises
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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. Prezentare generală
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 Referințe
1.2 Cerințe identificate
1.3 Reglementări asociate
2. Cerințe identificate
3. Reglementări asociate
Reglementări
| Sursă |
Reglementare |
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 11 (4)
Entitățile financiare instituie, mențin și testează periodic planuri de continuitate a activității TIC adecvate, în special în ceea ce privește funcțiile critice sau importante externalizate sau contractate prin acorduri cu furnizori terți de servicii TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 11 (6)
Ca parte a gestionării lor cuprinzătoare a riscurilor TIC, entitățile financiare:
(a)
testează planurile de continuitate a activității TIC și planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC în legătură cu sistemele TIC care sprijină toate funcțiile cel puțin o dată pe an, precum și în caz de eventuale modificări substanțiale ale sistemelor TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante;
(b)
testează planurile de comunicare în situații de criză instituite în conformitate cu articolul 14.
În scopul aplicării literei (a) de la primul paragraf, entitățile financiare altele decât microîntreprinderile includ în planurile de testare scenarii de atacuri cibernetice și transferuri între infrastructura TIC primară și capacitățile redundante, copiile de rezervă și instalațiile redundante necesare pentru a îndeplini obligațiile prevăzute la articolul 12. Entitățile financiare își revizuiesc periodic politica de continuitate a activității TIC și planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC, ținând seama de rezultatele testelor efectuate în conformitate cu primul paragraf, precum și de recomandările care decurg din evaluările de audit sau procesele de supraveghere.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (1)
În scopul evaluării nivelului de pregătire pentru gestionarea incidentelor legate de TIC, al identificării punctelor slabe, a deficiențelor și a lacunelor în ceea ce privește reziliența operațională digitală și al punerii în aplicare prompte a măsurilor corective, entitățile financiare, altele decât microîntreprinderile, stabilesc, mențin și revizuiesc, ținând seama de criteriile prevăzute la articolul 4 alineatul (2), un program solid și cuprinzător de testare a rezilienței operaționale digitale ca parte integrantă a cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la articolul 6.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (2)
Programul de testare a rezilienței operaționale digitale include o serie de evaluări, teste, metodologii, practici și instrumente care trebuie aplicate în conformitate cu articolele 25 și 26.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (3)
Atunci când desfășoară programul de testare a rezilienței operaționale digitale menționat la alineatul (1) de la prezentul articol, entitățile financiare, altele decât microîntreprinderile, urmează o abordare bazată pe riscuri, ținând seama de criteriile prevăzute la articolul 4 alineatul (2) și luând în considerare în mod corespunzător evoluția peisajului riscurilor TIC, orice riscuri specifice la care entitatea financiară în cauză este sau ar putea fi expusă, caracterul critic al activelor informaționale și al serviciilor furnizate, precum și orice alt factor pe care entitatea financiară îl consideră adecvat.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (4)
Entitățile financiare, altele decât microîntreprinderile, se asigură că testele sunt efectuate de părți independente, indiferent dacă sunt interne sau externe. Atunci când testele sunt efectuate de o entitate internă, entitățile financiare alocă resurse suficiente și se asigură că sunt evitate conflictele de interese pe parcursul fazelor de proiectare și execuție ale testului.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (5)
Entitățile financiare, altele decât microîntreprinderile, stabilesc proceduri și politici care să prioritizeze, să clasifice și să remedieze toate chestiunile identificate pe parcursul desfășurării testelor și stabilesc metodologii de validare internă pentru a se asigura că toate punctele slabe, deficiențele sau lacunele identificate sunt abordate integral.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 (6)
Entitățile financiare, altele decât microîntreprinderile, se asigură că se efectuează teste adecvate cel puțin o dată pe an asupra tuturor sistemelor și aplicațiilor TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 Componentele politicii de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 Componentele politicii de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 24 Componentele politicii de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 26 Planurile de răspuns și de recuperare în domeniul TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 39 Componentele planului de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 39 Componentele planului de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 39 Componentele planului de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 39 Componentele planului de continuitate a activității TIC
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 39 Componentele planului de continuitate a activității TIC
|
Tichete legate
- 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.
|