+Malicious Code Protection (Antimalware)
---+Always On Antimalware Protection
---+Heuristic / Nonsignature-Based Malware Detection
|
Malicious Code Protection (Antimalware)
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize antimalware, or similar technologies, to detect and eradicate malicious code.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are decentralized but are deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are centralized, deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are configured to generate event logs that can be centrally-reviewed (e.g., forwarded to a SIEM).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to provide real-time protection (e.g., always on).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to automatically update.
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint 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 END 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 utilize antimalware technologies to detect and eradicate malicious code.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 |
|
Always On Antimalware Protection
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure unless specifically authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period that anti-malware technologies:
(1) Are continuously running in real-time; and
(2) Cannot be disabled or altered by non-privileged users.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are centralized, deployed on all technology assets that can run anti-malware software.
▪ Anti-malware technologies are configured to generate event logs that can be centrally-reviewed (e.g., forwarded to a SIEM).
▪ Anti-malware detection tools are configured to provide real-time protection (e.g., always on).
Level 3 Well Defined
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint 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 END 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 that anti-malware technologies are continuously running in real-time and cannot be disabled or altered by non-privileged users, unless specifically authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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.
|
|
Heuristic / Nonsignature-Based Malware Detection
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize heuristic / nonsignature-based antimalware detection capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Antimalware software
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Antimalware software
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Antimalware software
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Antimalware software
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Antimalware software
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
Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Endpoint security management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Endpoint security 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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint 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 END 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 utilize heuristic / nonsignature-based antimalware detection capabilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Endpoint Security (END) 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 11 Varnost podatkov in sistemov
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 34 Varnost delovanja IKT
Člen 34
Finančni subjekti iz člena 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554 v okviru svojih sistemov, protokolov in orodij ter za vsa sredstva IKT:
(a)
spremljajo in upravljajo življenjski cikel vseh sredstev IKT;
(b)
spremljajo, ali sredstva IKT podpirajo tretji ponudniki storitev IKT finančnih subjektov, kadar je ustrezno;
(c)
opredelijo zahteve glede zmogljivostih svojih sredstev IKT in ukrepe za ohranjanje in izboljšanje razpoložljivosti in učinkovitosti sistemov IKT ter preprečevanje pomanjkanja zmogljivosti IKT, preden se pojavi;
(d)
izvajajo avtomatizirano pregledovanje in ocenjevanje ranljivosti sredstev IKT, in sicer sorazmerno z njihovo razvrstitvijo iz člena 30(1) in splošnim profilom tveganja sredstva IKT, ter uvedejo popravke za odpravo prepoznanih ranljivosti;
(e)
obvladujejo tveganja, povezana z zastarelimi, nepodprtimi ali obstoječimi sredstvi IKT;
(f)
beležijo dogodke, povezane z nadzorom logičnega in fizičnega dostopa, delovanjem IKT, v dnevnike, vključno z dejavnostmi v zvezi s sistemom in omrežnim prometom, ter upravljanjem sprememb na področju IKT;
(g)
opredelijo in izvajajo ukrepe za spremljanje in analizo informacij o neobičajnem ravnanju in vedenju za kritično ali pomembno delovanje IKT;
(h)
izvajajo ukrepe za spremljanje relevantnih in najnovejših informacij o kibernetskih grožnjah;
(i)
izvajajo ukrepe za identifikacijo morebitnih uhajanj informacij, zlonamernih kod in drugih varnostnih groženj ter javno znanih ranljivosti v programski in strojni opremi ter preverjajo, ali obstajajo ustrezne nove varnostne posodobitve.
Za namene točke (f) finančni subjekti uskladijo raven podrobnosti dnevnikov z njihovim namenom in uporabo sredstev IKT, ki te dnevnike proizvajajo.
|
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.
|