DORA Ch. IV Art. 25 1.

NOREA

Resilience Testing Program

Establish a risk-based digital operational resilience testing program encompassing identification, classification, and full remediation of test deficiencies based on risk landscape and criticality of assets and services. Utilize independent internal or external parties for conducting tests, ensuring clear Segregation of Duties (SoD). Conduct yearly tests on all systems and applications supporting critical or important functions (see controls 19-20 for the digital operational resilience tests).

NOREA

Diverse Testing Modalities

Employ a range of tests including vulnerability assessments, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses, physical security reviews, questionnaires, scanning software solutions, source code reviews (where applicable), scenario-based tests, compatibility testing, performance testing, end-to-end testing, and penetration testing as appropriate.

SCF

Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management Program

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

∙ Vulnerability & Patch Management 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

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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 apply software patches through an informal process.
▪ Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
▪ Vulnerability scanning services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.
▪ Penetration testing services may not be internal competencies and have to be outsourced.

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, 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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define the breadth and depth of coverage for vulnerability scanning that covers system components scanned and types of vulnerabilities that are checked for.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel maintain a structured process to apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

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, vulnerability scanning solution, 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 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 facilitate the implementation and monitoring of vulnerability management controls.

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

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.

SCF

Vulnerability Scanning

Description

Mechanisms exist to detect vulnerabilities and configuration errors by routine vulnerability scanning of systems and applications.