+DORA Ch. II Sec. II Art. 10 1.
|
DORA Ch. II Sec. II Art. 10 1.
1. Financial entities shall have in place mechanisms to promptly detect anomalous activities, in accordance with Article 17, including ICT network performance issues and ICT-related incidents, and to identify potential material single points of failure.
All detection mechanisms referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regularly tested in accordance with Article 25.
1. Übersicht
1.1 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Related Standards
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Source |
Anforderung |
3. Related Standards
Standards
| Source |
Anforderung |
|
NOREA
|
Security Monitoring (SIEM)
Put in place mechanisms to detect anomalous activities, including network performance issues, incidents (reported by the third-parties in the services that they provide), and potential material single points of failure. The mechanisms shall enable multi-layers of control, define alerting thresholds, monitoring on specific events and criteria to automatically trigger incident response. Identify and implement tools generating alerts of anomalous activities and behaviour, at least for ICT assets and information assets supporting critical or important functions. Devote sufficient resources to detection and monitoring activities, especially to cybersecurity attacks.
|
|
NOREA
|
Event Identification for Logging
Identify events to be logged, covering logical access, physical access, identity management, capacity management, change management, ICT operation (including system activity), and network traffic activities (including network performance). Determine the level of detail for the logs, aligning with the purpose for which the logs were created and to enable effective detection of anomalous activities. Define retention periods for logs, considering business and security objectives, the purpose of recording logs, and risk assessments.
*Data reporting service providers shall, in addition, have in place systems that can effectively check trade reports for completeness, identify omissions and obvious errors, and request re-transmission of those reports.
|
|
NOREA
|
Secure Handling of Log Data
Implement measures to secure and handle log data, taking into account the purpose for which the logs were created. Establish measures to detect failures in logging systems. Protect the recording of anomalous activities against tampering and unauthorised access at rest, in use, where relevant, and in transit.
|
|
SCF
|
Anomalous Behavior
Description
Mechanisms exist to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
∙ Indicators of Exposure (IoE)
∙ Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM)
∙ Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
∙ Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)
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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with MON domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Event monitoring-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Monitoring is primarily reactive in nature, focused on identifying incidents that occurred.
▪ Event log reviews primarily rely on manual processes to identify anomalous behaviors.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with MON 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 MON domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Continuous monitoring-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Continuous monitoring 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
Continuous Monitoring (MON) 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 MON domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel use a structured process via Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) to review and analyze logs.
▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain MON domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of continuous monitoring operations (e.g., Security Incident Event Manager (SIEM), etc.).
▪ 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 MON 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).
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce security event logging to contain sufficient information to establish necessary details of activity and allow for forensics analysis.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to utilize User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) and/or User Activity Monitoring (UAM) solutions to detect and respond to anomalous behavior that could indicate account compromise or other malicious activities.
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.
|
|