+Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action

Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action

Description

Mechanisms exist to track the effectiveness of remediation operations through metrics reporting.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Define and track time-to-remediate goals by severity

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Vulnerability remediation SLAs by severity level

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal remediation SLA policy with benchmark tracking

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise remediation SLA management and benchmarking program

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform with SLA tracking and reporting (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)

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

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.

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 track the effectiveness of remediation operations through metrics reporting.

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

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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

1. Prehľad

Názov Štandard

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 26 1

1.   Finančné subjekty iné ako subjekty uvedené v článku 16 ods. 1 prvom pododseku a iné ako mikropodniky, ktoré sú identifikované v súlade s odsekom 8 tretím pododsekom tohto článku, vykonávajú aspoň každé tri roky pokročilé testovanie prostredníctvom TLPT. Na základe rizikového profilu finančného subjektu a s prihliadnutím na prevádzkové okolnosti môže príslušný orgán v prípade potreby požiadať finančný subjekt o zníženie alebo zvýšenie tejto frekvencie.

EULAW Článok 26 2

2.   Každý penetračný test na základe konkrétnej hrozby zahŕňa viaceré alebo všetky kritické alebo dôležité funkcie finančného subjektu a vykonáva sa na živých produkčných systémoch podporujúcich takéto funkcie.

Finančné subjekty identifikujú všetky relevantné podkladové IKT systémy, procesy a technológie podporujúce kritické alebo dôležité funkcie a všetky relevantné IKT služby vrátane tých, ktoré podporujú kritické alebo dôležité funkcie, ktoré sú externe zabezpečované formou outsourcingu alebo zmluvne dohodnuté s externým poskytovateľom IKT služieb.

Finančné subjekty posúdia, na ktoré kritické alebo dôležité funkcie, sa TLPT musí vzťahovať. Výsledok tohto posúdenia určí presný rozsah TLPT a validujú ho príslušné orgány.

EULAW Článok 26 3

3.   Ak sú externí poskytovatelia IKT služieb zahrnutí do rozsahu pôsobnosti TLPT, finančný subjekt prijme potrebné opatrenia a záruky na zabezpečenie účasti takýchto externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb na TLPT a vždy si ponechá plnú zodpovednosť za zabezpečenie súladu s týmto nariadením.

EULAW Článok 26 4

4.   Bez toho, aby bol dotknutý odsek 2 prvý a druhý pododsek, ak sa opodstatnene očakáva, že účasť externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb na TLPT uvedenom v odseku 3, by mala nepriaznivý vplyv na kvalitu alebo bezpečnosť služieb, ktoré externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb poskytuje zákazníkom, ktorí sú subjektmi, na ktoré sa toto nariadenie nevzťahuje, alebo na dôvernosť údajov súvisiacich s takýmito službami, finančný subjekt a externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb sa môžu písomne dohodnúť, že externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb priamo vstúpi do zmluvných dojednaní s externým testovacím subjektom na účely vykonania združeného TLPT riadeného jedným určeným finančným subjektom, ktoré zahŕňa niekoľko finančných subjektov (ďalej len „združené testovanie“), ktorým externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb poskytuje IKT služby.

Toto združené testovanie sa vzťahuje na príslušnú škálu IKT služieb podporujúcich kritické alebo dôležité funkcie, v súvislosti s ktorými finančné subjekty uzavreli zmluvy s príslušným externým poskytovateľom IKT služieb. Združené testovanie sa považuje za TLPT vykonané finančnými subjektmi, ktoré sa zúčastňujú na združenom testovaní.

Počet finančných subjektov zúčastňujúcich sa na združenom testovaní sa náležite kalibruje s prihliadnutím na zložitosť a typy príslušných služieb.

EULAW Článok 26 5

5.   Finančné subjekty v spolupráci s externými poskytovateľmi IKT služieb a inými zainteresovanými stranami vrátane testovacích subjektov, ale s výnimkou príslušných orgánov, uplatňujú účinné kontroly riadenia rizík s cieľom zmierniť riziká akéhokoľvek potenciálneho vplyvu na údaje, poškodenie aktív a narušenie kritických alebo dôležitých funkcií, služieb alebo operácií samotného finančného subjektu, jeho protistrán alebo finančného sektora.

EULAW Článok 26 6

6.   Na konci testovania po schválení správ a plánov nápravy finančný subjekt a v náležitých prípadoch externé testovacie subjekty poskytnú orgánu určenému v súlade s odsekom 9 alebo 10 zhrnutie príslušných zistení, plány nápravy a dokumentáciu preukazujúcu, že TLPT bolo vykonané v súlade s požiadavkami.

EULAW Článok 26 7

7.   Orgány poskytnú finančným subjektom osvedčenie potvrdzujúce, že test bol vykonaný v súlade s požiadavkami uvedenými v dokumentácii, aby mohli príslušné orgány tieto penetračné testy na základe konkrétnej hrozby navzájom uznávať. Finančný subjekt oznámi osvedčenie, zhrnutie relevantných zistení a plány nápravy relevantnému príslušnému orgánu.

Bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté takéto osvedčenie, finančné subjekty zostávajú vždy plne zodpovedné za dôsledky testov uvedených v odseku 4.

EULAW Článok 26 8

8.   Finančné subjekty uzatvárajú zmluvy s testovacími subjektmi na účely vykonávania TLPT v súlade s článkom 27. Ak finančné subjekty využívajú interné testovacie subjekty na účely vykonávania TLPT, uzatvoria zmluvu s externými testovacími subjektmi po každom treťom testovaní.

Úverové inštitúcie, ktoré sú klasifikované ako významné v súlade s článkom 6 ods. 4 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1024/2013, využívajú len externé testovacie subjekty v súlade s článkom 27 ods. 1 písm. a) až e).

Príslušné orgány určia finančné subjekty, od ktorých sa vyžaduje vykonávanie TLPT, pričom zohľadnia kritériá stanovené v článku 4 ods. 2, a to na základe posúdenia:

a)

faktorov súvisiacich s vplyvom, najmä rozsahom, v akom služby poskytované a činnosti vykonávané finančným subjektom majú vplyv na finančný sektor;

b)

prípadných obáv o finančnú stabilitu vrátane systémového charakteru finančného subjektu na úrovni Únie alebo na vnútroštátnej úrovni, podľa toho, čo je uplatniteľné;

c)

konkrétneho IKT rizikového profilu, úrovne IKT vyspelosti finančného subjektu alebo súvisiacich technologických prvkov.

EULAW Článok 10 Riadenie zraniteľnosti a bezpečnostných záplat
-

Prepojené úlohy

Prepojenia
Typ prepojenia Úloha
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Technology
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
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 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 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 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
is related to Semi-Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 06
is related to Process
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by VPM-07 Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action – Assessment Procedure
blocks SI-02(03) Time to Remediate Flaws and Benchmarks for Corrective Actions
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.