+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Incident Response Training
Description
Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
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
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
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 train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
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 |
|
Simulated Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
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.
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 incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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.
|
|
Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
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
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-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 use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
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
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 automatically provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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 14 1
1. Finančné subjekty majú ako súčasť rámca riadenia IKT rizika uvedeného v článku 6 ods. 1 zavedené krízové komunikačné plány, ktoré umožňujú zodpovedné zverejňovanie aspoň závažných incidentov súvisiacich s IKT alebo zraniteľných miest pre klientov a protistrany, ako aj pre verejnosť, podľa konkrétneho prípadu.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 14 2
2. Finančné subjekty vykonávajú ako súčasť rámca riadenia IKT rizika komunikačné politiky pre interných zamestnancov a externé zainteresované strany. V komunikačných politikách pre zamestnancov sa zohľadňuje potreba rozlišovať medzi zamestnancami, ktorí sú zapojení do riadenia IKT rizika, najmä pokiaľ ide o zamestnancov zodpovedných za reakciu a obnovu, a zamestnancami, ktorí musia byť informovaní.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 14 3
3. Aspoň jedna osoba vo finančnom subjekte musí byť poverená vykonávaním komunikačnej stratégie pre incidenty súvisiace s IKT a na tento účel plní funkciu styku s verejnosťou a médiami.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 19 1
1. Finančné subjekty nahlasujú závažné incidenty súvisiace s IKT relevantnému príslušnému orgánu uvedenému v článku 46 v súlade s odsekom 4 tohto článku.
Ak finančný subjekt podlieha dohľadu viac ako jedného príslušného vnútroštátneho orgánu uvedeného v článku 46, členské štáty určia jediný príslušný orgán ako relevantný príslušný orgán zodpovedný za vykonávanie funkcií a povinností stanovených v tomto článku.
Úverové inštitúcie klasifikované ako významné v súlade s článkom 6 ods. 4 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1024/2013 oznamujú závažné incidenty súvisiace s IKT relevantnému vnútroštátnemu príslušnému orgánu určenému v súlade s článkom 4 smernice 2013/36/EÚ, ktorý uvedenú správu bezodkladne zašle ECB.
Na účely prvého pododseku finančné subjekty vypracujú po získaní a analýze všetkých relevantných informácií počiatočné oznámenie a správy uvedené v odseku 4 tohto článku s použitím vzorov uvedených v článku 20 a predložia ich príslušnému orgánu. V prípade, že nie je technicky možné predložiť počiatočné oznámenia s použitím vzoru, finančné subjekty o tom informujú príslušný orgán alternatívnymi prostriedkami.
Počiatočné oznámenie a správy uvedené v odseku 4 obsahujú všetky informácie, ktoré príslušný orgán potrebuje na určenie významnosti závažného incidentu súvisiaceho s IKT a posúdenie možných cezhraničných vplyvov.
Bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté nahlasovanie podľa prvého pododseku zo strany finančného subjektu relevantnému príslušnému orgánu môžu členské štáty dodatočne stanoviť, aby niektoré alebo všetky finančné subjekty tiež poskytovali počiatočné oznámenie a každú správu uvedenú v odseku 4 tohto článku s použitím vzorov uvedených v článku 20 príslušným orgánom alebo jednotkami pre riešenie počítačových bezpečnostných incidentov (ďalej len „CSIRT“) určeným alebo zriadeným v súlade so smernicou (EÚ) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 19 2
2. Finančné subjekty môžu dobrovoľne oznamovať významné kybernetické hrozby relevantnému príslušnému orgánu, ak sa domnievajú, že hrozba je relevantná pre finančný systém, používateľov služieb alebo klientov. Relevantný príslušný orgán môže poskytnúť takéto informácie iným relevantným orgánom uvedeným v odseku 6.
Úverové inštitúcie klasifikované ako významné v súlade s článkom 6 ods. 4 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1024/2013 môžu dobrovoľne oznamovať významné kybernetické hrozby relevantnému vnútroštátnemu príslušnému orgánu určenému v súlade s článkom 4 smernice 2013/36/EÚ, ktorý oznámenie bezodkladne zašle ECB.
Členské štáty môžu určiť, že tie finančné subjekty, ktoré dobrovoľne oznamujú v súlade s prvým pododsekom, môžu uvedené oznámenie zaslať aj jednotkám CSIRT určeným alebo zriadeným v súlade so smernicou (EÚ) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 19 3
3. Ak dôjde k závažnému incidentu súvisiacemu s IKT, ktorý má vplyv na finančné záujmy klientov, finančné subjekty bez zbytočného odkladu a čo najskôr po tom, ako o ňom nadobudli vedomosť, informujú svojich klientov o závažnom incidente súvisiacom s IKT a o opatreniach, ktoré boli prijaté na zmiernenie nepriaznivých účinkov takéhoto incidentu.
V prípade významnej kybernetickej hrozby finančné subjekty v náležitých prípadoch informujú svojich klientov, ktorí sú potenciálne dotknutí, o akýchkoľvek vhodných ochranných opatreniach, ktorých prijatie títo klienti môžu zvážiť.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 19 4
4. Finančné subjekty v lehotách, ktoré sa stanovia v súlade s článkom 20 prvým odsekom písm. a) bodom ii), predložia relevantnému príslušnému orgánu:
|
b)
|
priebežnú správu po počiatočnom oznámení uvedenom v písmene a), hneď ako sa výrazne zmení stav pôvodného incidentu alebo po zmene riešenia závažného incidentu súvisiaceho s IKT na základe nových dostupných informácií, po ktorej v náležitých prípadoch nasledujú aktualizované oznámenia vždy, keď je k dispozícii príslušná aktualizácia stavu, ako aj na základe osobitnej žiadosti príslušného orgánu;
|
|
c)
|
záverečnú správu po dokončení analýzy hlavných príčin, bez ohľadu na to, či už boli vykonané zmierňujúce opatrenia, a keď sú k dispozícii skutočné údaje o vplyve, aby sa nahradili odhady.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 19 5
5. Finančné subjekty môžu v súlade s odvetvovým právom Únie a vnútroštátnym odvetvovým právom zveriť nahlasovacie povinnosti podľa tohto článku externému poskytovateľovi služieb formou outsourcing. V prípade takéhoto outsourcingu je finančný subjekt naďalej plne zodpovedný za plnenie požiadaviek na nahlasovanie incidentov.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 45 3
3. Finančné subjekty oznámia príslušným orgánom svoju účasť na dojednaniach o výmene informácií uvedených v odseku 1 po potvrdení svojho členstva alebo prípadne ukončenie svojho členstva, keď nadobudne účinnosť.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 34 Oznámenie porušenia ochrany osobných údajov dotknutej osobe
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 23 Oznamovacie povinnosti
-
|
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.
|