+Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action

Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action

Description

Mechanisms exist to track the effectiveness of remediation operations through metrics reporting.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Define and track time-to-remediate goals by severity

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

∙ Vulnerability remediation SLAs by severity level

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

∙ Formal remediation SLA policy with benchmark tracking

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

∙ Enterprise remediation SLA management and benchmarking program

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

∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform with SLA tracking and reporting (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)

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

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.

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 track the effectiveness of remediation operations through metrics reporting.

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

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.
▪ 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. Översikt

Rubrik Standard

1.1 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade regleringar

2. Identifierade krav

Krav
Källa Krav

3. Relaterade regleringar

Regleringar
Källa Reglering
EULAW Artikel 26 1

1.   Andra finansiella entiteter än de entiteter som avses i artikel 16.1 första stycket och mikroföretag, vilka har identifierats i enlighet med punkt 8 tredje stycket i den här artikeln ska minst vart tredje år genomföra avancerade tester med hjälp av hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning. Baserat på den finansiella entitetens riskprofil och med beaktande av de operativa omständigheterna får den behöriga myndigheten vid behov begära att den finansiella entiteten minskar eller ökar denna frekvens.

EULAW Artikel 26 2

2.   Varje hotbildsstyrt penetrationstest ska omfatta flera eller alla av en finansiell entitets kritiska eller viktiga funktioner och ska utföras på produktionssystem i drift som stöder sådana funktioner.

Finansiella entiteter ska identifiera alla relevanta underliggande IKT-system, IKT-processer och IKT-tekniker som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner och IKT-tjänster, inbegripet de som stöder de kritiska eller viktiga funktioner som har utkontrakterats eller kontrakterats till tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.

Finansiella entiteter ska bedöma vilka kritiska eller viktiga funktioner som behöver omfattas av den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen. Resultatet av denna bedömning ska fastställa den exakta omfattningen av den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen och ska valideras av de behöriga myndigheterna.

EULAW Artikel 26 3

3.   Om tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster omfattas av den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen ska den finansiella entiteten vidta nödvändiga åtgärder och skyddsåtgärder för att säkerställa att sådana tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster deltar i den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen och ska alltid ha fullt ansvar för att säkerställa att denna förordning efterlevs.

EULAW Artikel 26 4

4.   Utan att det påverkar tillämpningen av punkt 2 första och andra styckena får den finansiella entiteten och en tredjepartsleverantör av IKT-tjänster, om tredjepartsleverantörens deltagande i den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen som avses i punkt 3 kan förväntas få negativ inverkan på kvaliteten eller säkerheten för de tjänster som tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster tillhandahåller till kunder som är entiteter som inte omfattas av denna förordning, eller för konfidentialiteten för data som är relaterade till sådana tjänster, skriftligen enas om att tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster ingår avtal med en extern testare i syfte att, under ledning av en utsedd finansiell entitet, genomföra en gemensam hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning med flera finansiella entiteter (gemensam testning) till vilka tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster tillhandahåller IKT-tjänster.

Den gemensamma testningen ska omfatta det relevanta spektrum av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner som de finansiella entiteterna har ingått avtal om med respektive tredjepartsleverantör av IKT-tjänster. Den gemensamma testningen ska betraktas som hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning utförd av de finansiella entiteter som deltar i den gemensamma testningen.

Antalet finansiella entiteter som deltar i den gemensamma testningen ska vederbörligen kalibreras med beaktande av de berörda tjänsternas komplexitet och typ.

EULAW Artikel 26 5

5.   De finansiella entiteterna ska, i samarbete med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster och andra berörda parter, inbegripet testarna men exklusive de behöriga myndigheterna, tillämpa effektiva riskhanteringskontroller för att minska riskerna för möjliga effekter på data, skador på tillgångar och avbrott i kritiska eller viktiga funktioner, tjänster eller transaktioner hos den finansiella entiteten själv, dess motpart eller den finansiella sektorn.

EULAW Artikel 26 6

6.   När testet har avslutats och efter det att rapporter och åtgärdsplaner har godkänts ska den finansiella entiteten och, i tillämpliga fall, de externa testarna förse den myndighet som utsetts i enlighet med punkt 9 eller 10 med en sammanfattning av de relevanta resultaten, åtgärdsplanerna och dokumentation som visar att den hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestningen har utförts i enlighet med kraven.

EULAW Artikel 26 7

7.   Myndigheter ska förse finansiella entiteter med ett intyg som bekräftar att testet genomfördes i enlighet med kraven, vilket ska framgå av dokumentationen, i syfte att möjliggöra ömsesidigt erkännande av hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning mellan behöriga myndigheter. Den finansiella entiteten ska underrätta den relevanta behöriga myndigheten om intyget, sammanfattningen av de relevanta resultaten och åtgärdsplanerna.

Utan att det påverkar tillämpligheten av ett sådant intyg ska de finansiella entiteterna alltid ha det fulla ansvaret för effekterna av de tester som avses i punkt 4.

EULAW Artikel 26 8

8.   Finansiella entiteter ska anlita testare i syfte att genomföra hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning i enlighet med artikel 27. Om finansiella entiteter använder interna testare för att genomföra hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning ska de anlita externa testare vid vart tredje test.

De kreditinstitut som klassificeras som betydande i enlighet med artikel 6.4 i förordning (EU) nr 1024/2013 ska endast använda externa testare i enlighet med artikel 27.1 a–e.

De behöriga myndigheterna ska identifiera de finansiella entiteter som är skyldiga att genomföra hotbildsstyrd penetrationstestning med beaktande av kriterierna i artikel 4.2, baserat på en bedömning av följande:

a)

Påverkansfaktorer, särskilt i vilken utsträckning de tjänster som tillhandahålls och den verksamhet som bedrivs av den finansiella entiteten påverkar den finansiella sektorn.

b)

Eventuella farhågor om den finansiella stabiliteten, inbegripet den finansiella entitetens betydelse för systemet som helhet på unionsnivå eller nationell nivå, beroende på vad som är tillämpligt.

c)

Den berörda finansiella entitetens specifika IKT-riskprofil, IKT-mognadsgrad och tekniska funktioner.

EULAW Artikel 10 Hantering av sårbarheter och programfixar
-

Länkade ärenden

Länkar
Länktyp Ärende
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Technology
is related to Detect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
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 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 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 Semi-Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 06
is related to Process
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by VPM-07 Time To Remediate / Benchmarks For Corrective Action – Assessment Procedure
blocks SI-02(03) Time to Remediate Flaws and Benchmarks for Corrective Actions
  • 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.