+Threat Intelligence Feeds
|
Threat Intelligence Feeds
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain situational awareness of vulnerabilities and evolving threats by leveraging the knowledge of attacker tactics, techniques and procedures to facilitate the implementation of preventative and compensating controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ US-CERT mailing lists & feeds ∙ Internal newsletters
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ US-CERT mailing lists & feeds ∙ Internal newsletters
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ US-CERT mailing lists & feeds ∙ Internal newsletters ∙ InfraGard (https://infragard.org)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ US-CERT mailing lists & feeds ∙ Internal newsletters ∙ InfraGard (https://infragard.org)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ US-CERT mailing lists & feeds ∙ Internal newsletters ∙ InfraGard (https://infragard.org)
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
Threat Management (THR) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with THR domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Threat management-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 subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with THR 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 THR domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Threat management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Threat 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 in supervisory positions subscribe to news feeds from groups and associations to facilitate ongoing education and training.
Level 3 Well Defined
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR 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 THR domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A threat management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain THR domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of threat management operations (e.g., threat intelligence solution and bug bounty 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 THR 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 situational awareness of vulnerabilities and evolving threats by leveraging the knowledge of attacker tactics, techniques and procedures to facilitate the implementation of preventative and compensating controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Threat Management (THR) 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
1.1 Referințe
1.2 Cerințe identificate
1.3 Reglementări asociate
2. Cerințe identificate
3. Reglementări asociate
Reglementări
| Sursă |
Reglementare |
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 10 Gestionarea vulnerabilităților și a corecțiilor
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 23 Detectarea activităților anormale și criterii pentru detectarea incidentelor legate de TIC și răspunsul la acestea
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 34 Securitatea operațiunilor TIC
Articolul 34
Securitatea operațiunilor TIC
Ca parte a sistemelor, protocoalelor și instrumentelor lor și pentru toate activele TIC, entitățile financiare menționate la articolul 16 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (UE) 2022/2554:
(a)
monitorizează și gestionează ciclul de viață al tuturor activelor TIC;
(b)
monitorizează dacă activele TIC sunt sprijinite de furnizori terți de servicii TIC ai entităților financiare, după caz;
(c)
identifică cerințele în materie de capacitate ale activelor TIC și măsurile de menținere și îmbunătățire a disponibilității și eficienței sistemelor TIC și de prevenire a deficitelor de capacitate TIC înainte ca acestea să se concretizeze;
(d)
efectuează scanarea automată a vulnerabilităților și evaluări ale activelor TIC, proporționale cu clasificarea acestora, astfel cum se menționează la articolul 30 alineatul (1), și cu profilul general de risc al activului TIC, și implementează corecții pentru a aborda vulnerabilitățile identificate;
(e)
gestionează riscurile legate de activele TIC care sunt învechite sau moștenite sau care nu mai beneficiază de asistență;
(f)
înregistrează în jurnale evenimentele legate de controlul accesului logic și fizic, operațiunile TIC, inclusiv activitățile de trafic de sistem și de rețea, precum și gestionarea modificărilor TIC;
(g)
identifică și pun în aplicare măsuri de monitorizare și analiză a informațiilor privind activitățile și comportamentele anormale pentru operațiunile TIC critice sau importante;
(h)
pun în aplicare măsuri de monitorizare a informațiilor relevante și actualizate cu privire la amenințările cibernetice;
(i)
pun în aplicare măsuri de identificare a posibilelor scurgeri de informații, a codurilor dăunătoare și a altor amenințări la adresa securității, precum și a vulnerabilităților cunoscute public ale software-ului și hardware-ului și verifică dacă există noi actualizări de securitate corespunzătoare.
În sensul literei (f), entitățile financiare aliniază nivelul de detaliu al jurnalelor la scopul acestora și la utilizarea activelor TIC care produc înregistrările în jurnalele respective.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 13 Învățăminte și perspective de dezvoltare
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolul 13 (1)
Entitățile financiare dispun de capacități și de personal pentru a colecta informații cu privire la vulnerabilități, amenințări cibernetice și incidente legate de TIC, în special atacuri cibernetice, și pentru a analiza impactul pe care acestea l-ar putea avea asupra rezilienței lor operaționale digitale.
|
Tichete legate
Legături
| Tip de legătură |
Tichet |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 08 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Lack of a security-minded workforce |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation of Remote Services |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Stealth |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Credential Access |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Utility Service Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Infrastructure Failure / Degradation |
|
blocks
|
OIS-05.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-03.03B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
PSS-03.05B |
|
is blocked by
|
THR-04 Threat Intelligence Feeds – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
PM-16(01) Automated Means for Sharing Threat Intelligence |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-05(01) Automated Alerts and Advisories |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [L] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [M] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-05 [H] Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
SI-05(01) [H] Automated Alerts and Advisories |
|
blocks
|
03.02.01 Literacy Training and Awareness |
|
blocks
|
03.11.02 Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning |
|
blocks
|
03.14.03 Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives |
|
blocks
|
03.11.12E Automated Means for Sharing Threat Intelligence |
|
blocks
|
ID.RA-02 Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources |
|
blocks
|
ID.RA-03 Internal and external threats to the organization are identified and recorded |
|
blocks
|
ID.RA-08 Processes for receiving, analyzing, and responding to vulnerability disclosures are established |
|
blocks
|
DE DETECT |
|
blocks
|
DE.AE-07 Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis |
- 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.
|