+Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
---+Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
---+Data Action Mapping
|
Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive and/or regulated data flows.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free, https://draw.io) or Microsoft Visio
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free) or Microsoft Visio
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com) or Microsoft Visio
∙ Network documentation tool (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Network topology tool (e.g., SolarWinds Network Topology Mapper, NetBox)
∙ Automated network diagram updates via discovery tools
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Enterprise network documentation platform (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
∙ Automated network discovery and diagram generation
∙ Diagrams integrated with CMDB and change 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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive/regulated data flows.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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. Pregled
| Naslov |
Standard |
|
Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
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.
|
|
Data Action Mapping
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive and/or regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io) for data flow diagrams
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Documented data flow diagrams with sensitivity labels
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ draw.io (https://draw.io)
∙ Data flow diagrams integrated with privacy impact assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Data flow diagrams maintained in CMDB or GRC platform
∙ Automated data mapping tools (e.g., BigID, OneTrust Data Mapping)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data flow/action mapping platform (e.g., BigID, OneTrust, Securiti.ai)
∙ Microsoft Visio / LucidChart for technical documentation
∙ Automated data lineage tools (e.g., Collibra, Alation)
∙ Data maps maintained current for regulatory compliance (GDPR Article 30)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 AST 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 create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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 Sklici
1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve
1.3 Povezani predpisi
2. Ugotovljene zahteve
3. Povezani predpisi
Predpisi
| Vir |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Člen 4 Politika upravljanja sredstev IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 13 Upravljanje varnosti omrežja
Člen 13
Upravljanje varnosti omrežja
Finančni subjekti v okviru zaščitnih ukrepov, ki zagotavljajo varnost omrežij pred vdori in zlorabo podatkov, razvijejo, dokumentirajo in izvajajo politike, postopke, protokole in orodja za upravljanje varnosti omrežja, vključno z vsem naslednjim:
(a)
ločevanjem in segmentacijo sistemov in omrežij IKT ob upoštevanju:
(i)
kritičnosti ali pomembnosti funkcije, ki jo podpirajo ti sistemi in omrežja IKT;
(ii)
razvrstitve, določene v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554;
(iii)
splošnega profila tveganja sredstev IKT, ki uporabljajo te sisteme in omrežja IKT;
(b)
dokumentacijo vseh omrežnih povezav in podatkovnih tokov finančnega subjekta;
(c)
uporabo ločenega in namenskega omrežja za upravljanje sredstev IKT;
(d)
opredelitvijo in izvajanjem nadzora dostopa do omrežja, da se preprečijo in odkrijejo povezave katere koli nepooblaščene naprave ali sistema ali katere koli končne točke, ki ne izpolnjuje varnostnih zahtev finančnega subjekta, z omrežjem finančnega subjekta;
(e)
šifriranjem omrežnih povezav, ki se potekajo prek korporativnih omrežij, javnih omrežij, domačih omrežij, omrežij tretjih strani in brezžičnih omrežij, za uporabljene komunikacijske protokole ob upoštevanju rezultatov odobrene razvrstitve podatkov, rezultatov ocene tveganja na področju IKT in šifriranja omrežnih povezav iz člena 6(2);
(f)
zasnovo omrežij v skladu z zahtevami za varnost IKT, ki jih določi finančni subjekt, ob upoštevanju vodilnih praks za zagotavljanje zaupnosti, celovitosti in razpoložljivosti omrežja;
(g)
zagotavljanjem omrežnega prometa med notranjimi omrežji ter internetom in drugimi zunanjimi povezavami;
(h)
opredelitvijo vlog, odgovornosti in korakov za določitev, izvajanje, odobritev, spremembo in pregled pravil za požarni zid in filtrov povezav;
(i)
izvajanjem pregledov arhitekture omrežja in varnostne zasnove omrežja enkrat letno, za mikropodjetja pa redno, da se prepoznajo morebitne ranljivosti;
(j)
ukrepi za začasno osamitev podomrežij ter omrežnih komponent in naprav, kadar je potrebno;
(k)
izvajanjem osnove varne konfiguracije vseh omrežnih komponent ter utrjevanjem varnosti omrežja in omrežnih naprav v skladu z morebitnimi navodili prodajalca, standardi, kot so opredeljeni v členu 2, točka 1, Uredbe (EU) št. 1025/2012, kadar je ustrezno, in vodilnimi praksami;
(l)
postopki za omejitev, zaklepanje in prekinitev sistema in sej na daljavo po določenem obdobju neaktivnosti;
(m)
za pogodbe o omrežnih storitvah:
(i)
opredelitvijo in določitvijo ukrepov za varnost IKT in informacijsko varnost, ravni storitev in zahtev glede upravljanja vseh omrežnih storitev;
(ii)
ali te storitve opravlja ponudnik storitev IKT znotraj skupine ali tretji ponudniki storitev IKT.
Za namene točke (h) finančni subjekti redno pregledujejo pravila za požarni zid in filtre povezav v skladu z razvrstitvijo, določeno v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554, in splošnim profilom tveganja zadevnih sistemov IKT. Za sisteme IKT, ki podpirajo kritične ali pomembne funkcije, finančni subjekti vsaj vsakih šest mesecev preverijo ustreznost obstoječih pravil za požarni zid in filtrov povezav.
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 8 Identificiranje
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 8 4
4. Financial entities shall identify all information assets and ICT assets, including those on remote sites, network resources and hardware equipment, and shall map those considered critical. They shall map the configuration of the information assets and ICT assets and the links and interdependencies between the different information assets and ICT assets.
|
Povezane zadeve
- 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.
|