+Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
---+System Account Reviews
|
Periodic Review of Individual & Service Account Privileges
Description
Mechanisms exist to periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual review of user access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Periodic (at least annual) review of all user account privileges
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal quarterly/annual account privilege review process
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program with automated review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt, IBM Security Verify)
∙ Automated access certification
∙ Continuous access review
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 periodically-review the privileges assigned to individuals and service accounts to validate the need for such privileges and reassign or remove unnecessary privileges, as necessary.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 |
|
System Account Reviews
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Periodic review of user accounts and access rights
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual user account review
∙ Remove unused accounts and excess access
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal periodic account review process
∙ Quarterly access reviews
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise access certification program
∙ Automated access review campaigns
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise IGA platform (e.g., SailPoint, Saviynt)
∙ Automated access certification campaigns
∙ Manager-driven access reviews
∙ Role mining and optimization
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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC).
▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services.
▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
▪ IAM proactively governs account management of individual, group, system, application, guest and temporary accounts.
▪ IAM inventories all privileged accounts and validates that each person with elevated privileges is authorized by the appropriate level of organizational management.
Level 3 Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) 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 IAC 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 review all system accounts and disable any account that cannot be associated with a business process and owner.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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
Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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.
|
1.1 Sklici
1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve
1.3 Povezani predpisi
2. Ugotovljene zahteve
3. Povezani predpisi
Predpisi
| Vir |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Člen 21 Nadzor dostopa
Člen 21
Finančni subjekti v okviru svojega nadzora pravic upravljanja dostopa razvijejo, dokumentirajo in izvajajo politiko, ki vsebuje vse naslednje:
(a)
dodelitev pravic dostopa do sredstev IKT na podlagi načel potrebe po seznanitvi, potrebe po uporabi in delovanja ob najmanjših privilegijih, vključno za oddaljeni dostop in dostop v sili;
(b)
ločevanje nalog, zasnovano za preprečevanje neupravičenega dostopa do kritičnih podatkov ali preprečevanje dodelitve kombinacij pravic dostopa, ki se lahko uporabijo za izogibanje kontrolam;
(c)
določbo o sledljivosti aktivnosti uporabniškega računa, tako da se čim bolj omeji uporaba generičnih in skupnih uporabniških računov ter zagotovi, da je uporabnike vedno mogoče prepoznati za dejanja, ki se izvajajo v sistemih IKT;
(d)
določbo o omejitvah dostopa do sredstev IKT, ki določa kontrole in orodja za preprečevanje nepooblaščenega dostopa;
(e)
postopke za upravljanje računov za podelitev, spremembo ali preklic pravic dostopa za uporabniške in generične račune, tudi za generične skrbniške račune, vključno z določbami o vsem naslednjem:
(i)
dodelitvi vlog in odgovornosti za podeljevanje, pregled in preklic pravic dostopa;
(ii)
dodelitvi prednostnega, nujnega in skrbniškega dostopa na podlagi potrebe po uporabi ali na priložnostni podlagi za vse sisteme IKT;
(iii)
odvzemu pravic dostopa brez nepotrebnega odlašanja ob prenehanju delovnega razmerja ali ko dostop ni več potreben;
(iv)
posodobitvi pravic dostopa, kadar so potrebne spremembe in vsaj enkrat letno za vse sisteme IKT, razen sistemov IKT, ki podpirajo kritične ali pomembne funkcije, in vsaj vsakih šest mesecev za sisteme IKT, ki podpirajo kritične ali pomembne funkcije;
(f)
metode avtentikacije, vključno z vsem naslednjim:
(i)
uporabo metod avtentikacije, ki so sorazmerne z razvrstitvijo, določeno v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554, in splošnim profilom tveganja sredstev IKT ter ob upoštevanju vodilnih praks;
(ii)
uporabo metod močne avtentikacije za oddaljeni dostop do omrežja finančnega subjekta, za prednostni dostop, za dostop do sredstev IKT, ki podpirajo kritične ali pomembne funkcije, ali sredstev IKT, ki so javno dostopna, v skladu z vodilnimi praksami in tehnikami;
(g)
ukrepe za nadzor fizičnega dostopa, ki vključujejo:
(i)
identifikacijo in evidentiranje fizičnih oseb, ki so pooblaščene za dostop do prostorov, podatkovnih centrov in občutljivih namenskih območij, ki jih določi finančni subjekt, kjer so nameščena sredstva IKT in informacijska sredstva;
(ii)
podelitev pravic fizičnega dostopa do ključnih sredstev IKT samo pooblaščenim osebam v skladu z načelom potrebe po seznanitvi in načelom delovanja ob najmanjših privilegijih ter na priložnostni podlagi;
(iii)
spremljanje fizičnega dostopa do prostorov, podatkovnih centrov in občutljivih namenskih območij, ki jih določi finančni subjekt, kjer so nameščena sredstva IKT in informacijska sredstva ali oboje;
(iv)
pregled pravic fizičnega dostopa, da se zagotovi takojšen preklic nepotrebnih pravic dostopa.
Za namene točke (e)(i) finančni subjekti določijo obdobje hrambe, pri čemer upoštevajo poslovne cilje in cilje glede informacijske varnosti, razloge za zabeleženje dogodka v dnevnike in rezultate ocene tveganja na področju IKT.
Za namene točke (e)(ii) finančni subjekti, kadar je to mogoče, uporabljajo namenske račune za izvajanje skrbniških nalog v zvezi s sistemi IKT. Kadar je to izvedljivo in primerno, finančni subjekti uvedejo avtomatizirane rešitve za upravljanje prednostnega dostopa.
Za namene točke (g)(i) sta identifikacija in evidentiranje sorazmerna s pomembnostjo prostorov, podatkovnih centrov in občutljivih namenskih območij ter kritičnostjo operacij ali sistemov IKT, ki se nahajajo v njih.
Za namene točke (g)(iii) je spremljanje sorazmerno z razvrstitvijo, določeno v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554, in kritičnostjo območja, do katerega se dostopa.
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 33 Nadzor dostopa
Člen 33
Finančni subjekti iz člena 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554 razvijejo, dokumentirajo in izvajajo postopke za nadzor logičnega in fizičnega dostopa ter te postopke izvršujejo, spremljajo in redno pregledujejo. Ti postopki vsebujejo naslednje elemente nadzora logičnega in fizičnega dostopa:
(a)
pravice dostopa do informacijskih sredstev, sredstev IKT in njihovih podprtih funkcij ter do kritičnih lokacij delovanja finančnega subjekta se upravljajo na podlagi potrebe po seznanitvi, potrebe po uporabi in delovanja ob najmanjših privilegijih, vključno za oddaljeni dostop in dostop v sili;
(b)
sledljivost aktivnosti uporabniškega računa, ki zagotavlja, da je za dejanja, ki se izvajajo v sistemih IKT, mogoče prepoznati uporabnike;
(c)
postopke za upravljanje računov za podelitev, spremembo ali preklic pravic dostopa za uporabniške in generične račune, tudi za generične skrbniške račune:
(d)
metode avtentikacije, ki so sorazmerne z razvrstitvijo iz člena 30(1) in splošnim profilom tveganja sredstev IKT ter temeljijo na vodilnih praksah;
(e)
pravice dostopa se redno pregledujejo in odvzamejo, ko niso več potrebne.
Za namene točke (c) finančni subjekt dodeli prednostni, nujni in skrbniški dostop za vse sisteme IKT na podlagi potrebe po uporabi ali na priložnostni podlagi, kar se beleži v dnevnike v skladu s členom 34, prvi odstavek, točka (f).
Za namene točke (d) finančni subjekti za oddaljeni dostop do omrežja finančnih subjektov, za prednostni dostop in za dostop do sredstev IKT, ki podpirajo kritične ali pomembne funkcije, ki so javno dostopne, uporabljajo metode močne avtentikacije, ki temeljijo na vodilnih praksah.
|
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.
|