+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. Prehľad
| Názov |
Štandard |
|
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 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požiadavky
1.3 Súvisiace predpisy
2. Identifikované požiadavky
Požiadavky
| Zdroj |
Požiadavka |
3. Súvisiace predpisy
Predpisy
| Zdroj |
Regulácia |
|
EULAW
|
Článok 22 Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
Článok 22
Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
Ako súčasť mechanizmov na odhaľovanie anomálnych činností vrátane problémov s výkonnosťou siete IKT a incidentov súvisiacich s IKT finančné subjekty vypracujú, zdokumentujú a vykonávajú politiku v oblasti incidentov súvisiacich s IKT, prostredníctvom ktorej vykonávajú tieto činnosti:
a)
dokumentácia procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT uvedeného v článku 17 nariadenia (EÚ) 2022/2554;
b)
zostavenie zoznamu príslušných kontaktných osôb s internými funkciami a externými zainteresovanými stranami, ktoré sú priamo zapojené do bezpečnosti operácií IKT, a to aj pokiaľ ide o tieto prvky:
i)
odhaľovanie a monitorovanie kybernetických hrozieb;
ii)
odhaľovanie anomálnych činností;
c)
vytvorenie, vykonávanie a prevádzka technických, organizačných a prevádzkových mechanizmov na podporu procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT vrátane mechanizmov umožňujúcich urýchlené odhalenie anomálnych činností a správania v súlade s článkom 23 tohto nariadenia;
▼C1
d)
uchovávanie všetkých dôkazov týkajúcich sa incidentov súvisiacich s IKT počas obdobia, ktoré nie je dlhšie, ako je potrebné na účely, na ktoré sa údaje zhromažďujú, zodpovedá kritickosti ovplyvnených obchodných funkcií, podporných procesov, IKT aktív a informačných aktív v súlade s článkom 8 ods. 2 delegovaného nariadenia Komisie (EÚ) 2024/1772 (
2
) a s akoukoľvek uplatniteľnou požiadavkou na uchovávanie podľa právnych predpisov Únie;
▼B
e)
vytvorenie a zavedenie mechanizmov na analýzu významných alebo opakujúcich sa incidentov a modelov súvisiacich s IKT, pokiaľ ide o počet a výskyt incidentov súvisiacich s IKT.
Na účely písmena d) finančné subjekty uchovávajú dôkazy uvedené v uvedenom písmene bezpečne.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 22 Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
Článok 22
Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
Ako súčasť mechanizmov na odhaľovanie anomálnych činností vrátane problémov s výkonnosťou siete IKT a incidentov súvisiacich s IKT finančné subjekty vypracujú, zdokumentujú a vykonávajú politiku v oblasti incidentov súvisiacich s IKT, prostredníctvom ktorej vykonávajú tieto činnosti:
a)
dokumentácia procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT uvedeného v článku 17 nariadenia (EÚ) 2022/2554;
b)
zostavenie zoznamu príslušných kontaktných osôb s internými funkciami a externými zainteresovanými stranami, ktoré sú priamo zapojené do bezpečnosti operácií IKT, a to aj pokiaľ ide o tieto prvky:
i)
odhaľovanie a monitorovanie kybernetických hrozieb;
ii)
odhaľovanie anomálnych činností;
c)
vytvorenie, vykonávanie a prevádzka technických, organizačných a prevádzkových mechanizmov na podporu procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT vrátane mechanizmov umožňujúcich urýchlené odhalenie anomálnych činností a správania v súlade s článkom 23 tohto nariadenia;
▼C1
d)
uchovávanie všetkých dôkazov týkajúcich sa incidentov súvisiacich s IKT počas obdobia, ktoré nie je dlhšie, ako je potrebné na účely, na ktoré sa údaje zhromažďujú, zodpovedá kritickosti ovplyvnených obchodných funkcií, podporných procesov, IKT aktív a informačných aktív v súlade s článkom 8 ods. 2 delegovaného nariadenia Komisie (EÚ) 2024/1772 (
2
) a s akoukoľvek uplatniteľnou požiadavkou na uchovávanie podľa právnych predpisov Únie;
▼B
e)
vytvorenie a zavedenie mechanizmov na analýzu významných alebo opakujúcich sa incidentov a modelov súvisiacich s IKT, pokiaľ ide o počet a výskyt incidentov súvisiacich s IKT.
Na účely písmena d) finančné subjekty uchovávajú dôkazy uvedené v uvedenom písmene bezpečne.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 17 Proces riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 17 Proces riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 17 1
1. Finančné subjekty vymedzia, zavedú a vykonávajú proces riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT s cieľom odhaľovať, riadiť a oznamovať incidenty súvisiace s IKT.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 17 2
2. Finančné subjekty zaznamenávajú všetky incidenty súvisiace s IKT a významné kybernetické hrozby. Finančné subjekty stanovia vhodné postupy a procesy na zaistenie konzistentného a integrovaného monitorovania, riešenia a následných opatrení v prípade incidentov súvisiacich s IKT s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby sa hlavné príčiny identifikovali, zdokumentovali a riešili s cieľom zabrániť výskytu takýchto incidentov.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 17 3
3. V rámci procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT uvedeným v odseku 1 sa:
|
a)
|
zavedú ukazovatele včasného varovania;
|
|
b)
|
v súlade s kritériami stanovenými v článku 18 ods. 1 stanovia postupy na identifikáciu, sledovanie, zaznamenávanie, kategorizáciu a klasifikáciu incidentov súvisiacich s IKT podľa ich priority a závažnosti a podľa kritickosti zasiahnutých služieb;
|
|
c)
|
prideľujú úlohy a povinnosti, ktoré treba aktivovať pre jednotlivé druhy a scenáre incidentov súvisiacich s IKT;
|
|
d)
|
stanovujú plány komunikácie so zamestnancami, externými zainteresovanými stranami a médiami v súlade s článkom 14 a plány oznamovania klientom, plány interných eskalačných postupov vrátane sťažností zákazníkov súvisiacich s IKT, ako aj plány poskytovania informácií finančným subjektom, ktoré konajú ako protistrany, vo vhodných prípadoch;
|
|
e)
|
zabezpečujú, aby sa aspoň závažné incidenty súvisiace s IKT nahlasovali príslušnému vrcholovému manažmentu a informujú riadiaci orgán aspoň o závažných incidentoch súvisiacich s IKT, pričom vysvetlia vplyv, reakciu a dodatočné kontroly, ktoré sa majú zaviesť v dôsledku takýchto incidentov súvisiacich s IKT;
|
|
f)
|
stanovujú postupy reakcie na incidenty súvisiace s IKT s cieľom zmierniť vplyvy a zabezpečiť včasné sfunkčnenie a bezpečnosť služieb.
|
|
Prepojené úlohy
- 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.
|