+Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of risk-based vulnerability management capabilities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

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 facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.

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

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

1.1 Sklici

1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve

1.3 Povezani predpisi

2. Ugotovljene zahteve

Zahteve

3. Povezani predpisi

Predpisi
EULAW Člen 21 Ukrepi za obvladovanje tveganj za kibernetsko varnost
-
EULAW Člen 3 Obvladovanje tveganj na področju IKT

Člen 3

Obvladovanje tveganj na področju IKT

Finančni subjekti razvijejo, dokumentirajo in izvajajo politike in postopke za obvladovanje tveganj na področju IKT, ki vsebujejo vse naslednje:

(a) 

navedbo odobritve tolerančne ravni tveganja za tveganje na področju IKT, določene v skladu s členom 6(8), točka (b), Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554;

(b) 

postopek in metodologijo za izvedbo ocene tveganja na področju IKT, v katerih so opredeljeni:

(i) 

ranljivosti in grožnje, ki vplivajo ali bi lahko vplivale na podprte poslovne funkcije, sisteme IKT in sredstva IKT, ki podpirajo te funkcije;

(ii) 

kvantitativni ali kvalitativni kazalniki za merjenje učinka in verjetnosti ranljivosti in groženj iz točke (i);

(c) 

postopek za opredelitev, izvajanje in dokumentiranje ukrepov za obravnavo tveganj na področju IKT za identificirana in ocenjena tveganja na področju IKT, vključno z določitvijo ukrepov za obravnavo tveganj na področju IKT, potrebnih za uskladitev tveganja na področju IKT s tolerančno ravnjo tveganja iz točke (a);

(d) 

za preostala tveganja na področju IKT, ki so še vedno prisotna po izvajanju ukrepov za obravnavo tveganj na področju IKT iz točke (c):

(i) 

določbe o identifikaciji teh preostalih tveganj na področju IKT;

(ii) 

dodelitev vlog in odgovornosti v zvezi s:

(1) 

sprejetjem preostalih tveganj na področju IKT, ki presegajo tolerančno raven tveganja finančnega subjekta iz točke (a);

(2) 

postopkom pregleda iz točke (iv) te točke (d);

(iii) 

pripravo popisa sprejetih preostalih tveganj na področju IKT, vključno z utemeljitvijo njihovega sprejetja;

(iv) 

določbe o pregledu sprejetih preostalih tveganj na področju IKT vsaj enkrat letno, vključno z:

(1) 

identifikacijo vseh sprememb preostalih tveganj na področju IKT;

(2) 

oceno razpoložljivih blažilnih ukrepov;

(3) 

oceno, ali so razlogi, ki upravičujejo sprejetje preostalih tveganj na področju IKT, še vedno veljavni in se uporabljajo na datum pregleda;

(e) 

določbe o spremljanju:

(i) 

vseh sprememb tveganja na področju IKT in okolja kibernetskih groženj;

(ii) 

notranjih in zunanjih ranljivosti in groženj;

(iii) 

tveganja finančnega subjekta na področju IKT, ki omogoča hitro odkrivanje sprememb, ki bi lahko vplivale na njegov profil tveganja na področju IKT;

(f) 

določbe o postopku za zagotovitev, da se upoštevajo vse spremembe poslovne strategije in strategije za digitalno operativno odpornost finančnega subjekta.

Za namene prvega odstavka, točka (c), postopek iz navedene točke zagotavlja:

(a) 

spremljanje učinkovitosti izvedenih ukrepov za obravnavo tveganj na področju IKT;

(b) 

oceno, ali so bile dosežene določene tolerančne ravni tveganja finančnega subjekta;

(c) 

oceno, ali je finančni subjekt sprejel ukrepe za popravek ali izboljšanje navedenih ukrepov, kadar je potrebno.
EULAW Člen 10 Upravljanje ranljivosti in popravkov
-
EULAW Člen 10 Upravljanje ranljivosti in popravkov
-
EULAW Člen 10 Upravljanje ranljivosti in popravkov
-
EULAW Člen 10 Upravljanje ranljivosti in popravkov
-
EULAW Člen 10 Upravljanje ranljivosti in popravkov
-
EULAW Člen 31 Obvladovanje tveganj na področju IKT
-
EULAW Člen 34 Varnost delovanja IKT

Člen 34

Varnost delovanja IKT

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.
EULAW Člen 9 Varovanje in preprečevanje
-
EULAW Člen 25 Testiranje sistemov in orodij IKT
-
EULAW Article 9 4

4.   As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall:

(a)

develop and document an information security policy defining rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of data, information assets and ICT assets, including those of their customers, where applicable;

(b)

following a risk-based approach, establish a sound network and infrastructure management structure using appropriate techniques, methods and protocols that may include implementing automated mechanisms to isolate affected information assets in the event of cyber-attacks;

(c)

implement policies that limit the physical or logical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is required for legitimate and approved functions and activities only, and establish to that end a set of policies, procedures and controls that address access rights and ensure a sound administration thereof;

(d)

implement policies and protocols for strong authentication mechanisms, based on relevant standards and dedicated control systems, and protection measures of cryptographic keys whereby data is encrypted based on results of approved data classification and ICT risk assessment processes;

(e)

implement documented policies, procedures and controls for ICT change management, including changes to software, hardware, firmware components, systems or security parameters, that are based on a risk assessment approach and are an integral part of the financial entity’s overall change management process, in order to ensure that all changes to ICT systems are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, implemented and verified in a controlled manner;

(f)

have appropriate and comprehensive documented policies for patches and updates.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (b), financial entities shall design the network connection infrastructure in a way that allows it to be instantaneously severed or segmented in order to minimise and prevent contagion, especially for interconnected financial processes.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e), the ICT change management process shall be approved by appropriate lines of management and shall have specific protocols in place.
EULAW Article 25 1

1.   The digital operational resilience testing programme referred to in Article 24 shall provide, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 4(2), for the execution of appropriate tests, such as vulnerability assessments and scans, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses, physical security reviews, questionnaires and scanning software solutions, source code reviews where feasible, scenario-based tests, compatibility testing, performance testing, end-to-end testing and penetration testing.
EULAW Article 25 2

2.   Central securities depositories and central counterparties shall perform vulnerability assessments before any deployment or redeployment of new or existing applications and infrastructure components, and ICT services supporting critical or important functions of the financial entity.
EULAW Article 25 3

3.   Microenterprises shall perform the tests referred to in paragraph 1 by combining a risk-based approach with a strategic planning of ICT testing, by duly considering the need to maintain a balanced approach between the scale of resources and the time to be allocated to the ICT testing provided for in this Article, on the one hand, and the urgency, type of risk, criticality of information assets and of services provided, as well as any other relevant factor, including the financial entity’s ability to take calculated risks, on the other hand.

Povezane zadeve

Povezave
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
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 System / Data Compromise (Non-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 Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
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 relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Govern
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
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 Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Adversarial Artificial Intelligence (AI) Attack
blocks Operational Technology (OT) / Industrial Control System (ICS) Attack
blocks AM-05.01B
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-23.01B
blocks PSS-01.02B
blocks PSS-03.01B
is blocked by VPM-02 Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP) – Assessment Procedure
blocks SI-02 Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [L] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [L] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [M] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [M] Malicious Code Protection
blocks SI-02 [H] Flaw Remediation
blocks SI-03 [H] Malicious Code Protection
blocks 03.11.02 Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning
blocks 03.14.01 Flaw Remediation
blocks ID.RA-01 Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
blocks ID.RA-08 Processes for receiving, analyzing, and responding to vulnerability disclosures are established
blocks PR.PS-02 Software is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk
  • 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.