+Access To Critical Systems
---+Lockable Physical Casings
|
Access To Critical Systems
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Locked server closet/cabinet separate from general office access
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Locked server room with access limited to named IT staff
∙ Separate key or badge level for critical systems
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Badge-controlled server room with dedicated access group
∙ Locked racks for critical systems
∙ Access log review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data center / server room access restricted by PACS zone
∙ Locked cabinets or cages for critical and regulated systems
∙ Video surveillance of critical areas
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data center access control with multi-factor entry (badge + biometric/PIN)
∙ Caged or locked racks for critical systems
∙ Continuous access log monitoring
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
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.
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Standard |
|
Lockable Physical Casings
|
Description
Physical access control mechanisms exist to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Lockable cabinet for network/server equipment
∙ Kensington-style locks for shared devices
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Lockable server racks and network cabinets
∙ Tamper-evident seals on critical devices
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Locked racks in server room with key control
∙ Chassis locks and tamper-evident seals
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Locked cabinets/cages for all critical infrastructure
∙ Chassis intrusion detection enabled
∙ Tamper-evident seals with periodic inspection
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise rack-level access control with electronic locks and audit logs
∙ Chassis intrusion detection integrated with SIEM
∙ Tamper inspection 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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access).
▪ 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 PES 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 physical security capability exists to protect system components from unauthorized physical access (e.g., lockable physical casings).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 Åtkomstkontroll
Artikel 21
Som en del av sin kontroll av rättigheter till åtkomsthantering ska finansiella entiteter utarbeta, dokumentera och genomföra en policy som innehåller allt av följande:
a)
Tilldelning av åtkomsträttigheter till IKT-tillgångar baserat på principerna om behovsenlig behörighet, behovsenlig användning och minsta möjliga behörighet, inklusive för fjärråtkomst och nödåtkomst.
b)
Åtskillnad av arbetsuppgifter för att förhindra omotiverad åtkomst till kritiska uppgifter eller för att förhindra tilldelning av kombinationer av åtkomsträttigheter som kan användas för att kringgå kontroller.
c)
En bestämmelse om användares ansvarsskyldighet, genom att i möjligaste mån begränsa användningen av generiska och delade användarkonton och säkerställa att användarna alltid kan identifieras när åtgärder utförs i IKT-systemen.
d)
En bestämmelse om begränsningar av åtkomst till IKT-tillgångar, med angivande av kontroller och verktyg för att förhindra obehörig åtkomst.
e)
Förfaranden för kontohantering för att bevilja, ändra eller återkalla åtkomsträttigheter för användarkonton och generiska konton, även generiska administratörskonton, inklusive bestämmelser om
i)
tilldelning av roller och ansvarsområden för att bevilja, granska och återkalla åtkomsträttigheter,
ii)
tilldelning av privilegierad åtkomst, nödåtkomst och administratörsåtkomst efter behov eller från fall till fall och för samtliga IKT-system,
iii)
återkallande av åtkomsträttigheter utan onödigt dröjsmål när anställningen upphör eller när åtkomsten inte längre är nödvändig,
iv)
uppdatering av åtkomsträttigheter när ändringar krävs och minst en gång per år för samtliga IKT-system, utom för IKT-system som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner där uppdateringen ska ske minst var sjätte månad.
f)
Autentiseringsmetoder, inklusive
i)
användning av autentiseringsmetoder som står i proportion till den klassificering som fastställts i enlighet med artikel 8.1 i förordning (EU) 2022/2554 och till IKT-tillgångarnas allmänna riskprofil och med beaktande av ledande praxis,
ii)
användning av robusta metoder för autentisering i enlighet med ledande praxis och teknik för fjärråtkomst till den finansiella entitetens nätverk, för privilegierad åtkomst och för åtkomst till IKT-tillgångar som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner eller IKT-tillgångar som är allmänt tillgängliga.
g)
Åtgärder för fysisk åtkomstkontroll, inklusive
i)
identifiering och loggning av fysiska personer som är behöriga att få tillträde till lokaler, datacentraler och känsliga angivna områden som identifierats av den finansiella entiteten där IKT-tillgångar och informationstillgångar finns,
ii)
beviljande av fysiska åtkomsträttigheter till kritiska IKT-tillgångar endast för behöriga personer, i enlighet med principerna om behovsenlig behörighet och minsta möjliga behörighet, och från fall till fall,
iii)
övervakning av fysiskt tillträde till lokaler, datacentraler och känsliga angivna områden som identifierats av den finansiella entiteten där IKT-tillgångar och informationstillgångar eller bådadera finns,
iv)
granskning av fysiska åtkomsträttigheter för att säkerställa att onödiga åtkomsträttigheter omedelbart återkallas.
Vid tillämpning av led e i ska finansiella entiteter fastställa lagringstiden med beaktande av verksamhets- och informationssäkerhetsmålen, skälen till att händelsen registreras i loggarna och resultaten av IKT-riskbedömningen.
Vid tillämpning av led e ii ska finansiella entiteter, när så är möjligt, använda särskilda konton för att utföra administrativa uppgifter på IKT-system. När så är möjligt och lämpligt ska finansiella entiteter införa automatiserade lösningar för hantering av privilegierad åtkomst.
Vid tillämpning av led g i ska identifieringen och loggningen stå i proportion till hur viktiga lokalerna, datacentralerna och de känsliga angivna områdena är och hur kritiska de verksamheter eller IKT-system som finns där är.
Vid tillämpning av led g iii ska övervakningen stå i proportion till den klassificering som fastställts i enlighet med artikel 8.1 i förordning (EU) 2022/2554 och hur kritiskt det område är till vilket åtkomst ges.
|
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.
|