+Control Validation Testing (CVT)
---+Plan / Coordinate with Other Organizational Entities
|
Control Validation Testing (CVT)
Description
Mechanisms exist to formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security 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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment software).
▪ 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 IAO 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 formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Standard |
|
Plan / Coordinate with Other Organizational Entities
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to plan and coordinate Control Validation Testing (CVT) activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Notify affected staff before security testing
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Testing schedule communicated to affected teams
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Assessment planning with stakeholder coordination (change calendar, notifications)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal assessment planning and coordination with business units, IT operations and third parties
∙ Audit steering committee
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise assurance planning integrated with change management and operations calendars
∙ Audit steering committee governance
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment software).
▪ 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 IAO 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 plan and coordinate Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade regleringar
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade regleringar
Regleringar
| Källa |
Reglering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 9 Riskhanteringssystem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 Hantering av nätverkssäkerhet
Artikel 13
Hantering av nätverkssäkerhet
Finansiella entiteter ska, som en del av de skyddsåtgärder som säkerställer nätverkens säkerhet mot intrång och missbruk av uppgifter, utarbeta, dokumentera och införa strategier, förfaranden, protokoll och verktyg för hantering av nätverkssäkerhet, inklusive allt av följande:
a)
Segregering och segmentering av IKT-system och nätverk med beaktande av
i)
kritikaliteten hos eller vikten av den funktion som dessa IKT-system och nätverk stöder,
ii)
den klassificering som fastställts i enlighet med artikel 8.1 i förordning (EU) 2022/2554,
iii)
den allmänna riskprofilen för IKT-tillgångar som använder dessa IKT-system och nätverk.
b)
Dokumentation av den finansiella entitetens samtliga nätverksanslutningar och dataflöden.
c)
Användning av ett separat och särskilt nätverk för administration av IKT-tillgångar.
d)
Identifiering och genomförande av kontroller för nätverksåtkomst för att förhindra och upptäcka anslutningar till den finansiella entitetens nätverk av en obehörig enhet eller ett obehörigt system, eller någon slutpunkt som inte uppfyller den finansiella entitetens säkerhetskrav.
e)
Kryptering av nätverksanslutningar som går via företagsnätverk, offentliga nätverk, inhemska nätverk, tredje parts nätverk och trådlösa nätverk, för kommunikationsprotokoll som används, med beaktande av resultaten av den godkända dataklassificeringen, resultaten av IKT-riskbedömningen och den kryptering av nätverksanslutningar som avses i artikel 6.2.
f)
Utformning av nätverk i linje med de IKT-säkerhetskrav som fastställts av den finansiella entiteten, med beaktande av ledande praxis för att säkerställa nätverkets konfidentialitet, integritet och tillgänglighet.
g)
Säkring av nätverkstrafik mellan de interna nätverken och internet och andra externa anslutningar.
h)
Identifiering av roller och ansvarsområden samt steg för specifikation, införande, godkännande, ändring och granskning av brandväggsregler och anslutningsfilter.
i)
Granskning av nätverksarkitekturen och utformningen av nätverkssäkerheten en gång per år, och regelbundet för mikroföretag, för att identifiera potentiella sårbarheter.
j)
Åtgärder för att vid behov tillfälligt isolera delnätverk samt nätverkskomponenter och nätverksenheter.
k)
Införande av en baslinje för säker konfiguration av alla nätverkskomponenter och härdning av nätverket och nätverksenheter i linje med eventuella leverantörsanvisningar, i tillämpliga fall standarder enligt definitionen i artikel 2.1 i förordning (EU) nr 1025/2012 och ledande praxis.
l)
Förfaranden för att begränsa, låsa och avsluta system- och fjärrsessioner efter en angiven period av inaktivitet.
m)
När det gäller avtal om nätverkstjänster,
i)
identifiering och specificering av IKT-säkerhetsåtgärder och informationssäkerhetsåtgärder, servicenivåer och hanteringskrav för alla nätverkstjänster,
ii)
huruvida dessa tjänster tillhandahålls av en koncernintern IKT-tjänteleverantör eller av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.
Vid tillämpning av led h ska finansiella entiteter regelbundet granska brandväggsregler och anslutningsfilter i enlighet med den klassificering som fastställts i enlighet med artikel 8.1 i förordning (EU) 2022/2554 och den allmänna riskprofilen för de berörda IKT-systemen. När det gäller IKT-system som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ska finansiella entiteter kontrollera att de befintliga brandväggsreglerna och anslutningsfiltren är tillräckliga minst var sjätte månad.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 36 IKT-säkerhetstestning
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 36 IKT-säkerhetstestning
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 Tillverkares skyldigheter
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 32 Förfaranden för bedömning av överensstämmelse för produkter med digitala element
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 13 Tillverkares skyldigheter
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 32 Förfaranden för bedömning av överensstämmelse för produkter med digitala element
-
|
Länkade ärenden
- 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.
|