+DORA Ch. II Sec. II Art. 10 2.
|
DORA Ch. II Sec. II Art. 10 2.
2. The detection mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall enable multiple layers of control, define alert thresholds and criteria to trigger and initiate ICT-related incident response processes, including automatic alert mechanisms for relevant staff in charge of ICT-related incident response.
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
|
Network Intrusion Detection / Prevention Systems (NIDS / NIPS)
Description
Mechanisms exist to employ Network Intrusion Detection / Prevention Systems (NIDS/NIPS) to detect and/or prevent intrusions into the network.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS)
∙ Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIPS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS)
∙ Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIPS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS)
∙ Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIPS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS)
∙ Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIPS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS)
∙ Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIPS)
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
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Network security 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 personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
Level 3 Well Defined
Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A network security 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 network security operations (e.g., network management solution, log aggregator, 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 NET 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 the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to employ Network Intrusion Detection / Prevention Systems (NIDS/NIPS) to detect and/or prevent intrusions into the network.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) 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.
|
|