+Configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for High-Risk Areas

Configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for High-Risk Areas

Description

Mechanisms exist to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) utilized in high-risk areas with more restrictive baseline configurations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs)
∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks
∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides

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

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

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

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

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

Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Configuration management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) are used to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) according to the principles of least functionality and least privilege, mostly conforming to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides).
▪ The restrictiveness of the SBCs are commensurate with the criticality of the TAAS and/or sensitivity of the data being protected, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and frameworks.
▪ Tailored SBC are created for higher-risk operating environments and/or for TAAS that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data.

Level 3 Well Defined

Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management 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 CFG 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 configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) utilized in high-risk areas with more restrictive baseline configurations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Configuration Management (CFG) 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

1. Overview

Summary	Standard

1.1 References

1.2 Identified Requirements

1.3 Related Regulations

Article 14 Human oversight (EULAW)

2. Identified Requirements

Requirements
Source	Requirement

3. Related Regulations

Regulations

EULAW

Article 14 Human oversight

Article 14

Human oversight

1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can be effectively overseen by natural persons during the period in which they are in use.

2. Human oversight shall aim to prevent or minimise the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular where such risks persist despite the application of other requirements set out in this Section.

3. The oversight measures shall be commensurate with the risks, level of autonomy and context of use of the high-risk AI system, and shall be ensured through either one or both of the following types of measures:

(a)	measures identified and built, when technically feasible, into the high-risk AI system by the provider before it is placed on the market or put into service;

(b)	measures identified by the provider before placing the high-risk AI system on the market or putting it into service and that are appropriate to be implemented by the deployer.

4. For the purpose of implementing paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the high-risk AI system shall be provided to the deployer in such a way that natural persons to whom human oversight is assigned are enabled, as appropriate and proportionate:

(a)	to properly understand the relevant capacities and limitations of the high-risk AI system and be able to duly monitor its operation, including in view of detecting and addressing anomalies, dysfunctions and unexpected performance;

(b)	to remain aware of the possible tendency of automatically relying or over-relying on the output produced by a high-risk AI system (automation bias), in particular for high-risk AI systems used to provide information or recommendations for decisions to be taken by natural persons;

(c)	to correctly interpret the high-risk AI system’s output, taking into account, for example, the interpretation tools and methods available;

(d)	to decide, in any particular situation, not to use the high-risk AI system or to otherwise disregard, override or reverse the output of the high-risk AI system;

(e)	to intervene in the operation of the high-risk AI system or interrupt the system through a ‘stop’ button or a similar procedure that allows the system to come to a halt in a safe state.

5. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1(a) of Annex III, the measures referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article shall be such as to ensure that, in addition, no action or decision is taken by the deployer on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless that identification has been separately verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons with the necessary competence, training and authority.

The requirement for a separate verification by at least two natural persons shall not apply to high-risk AI systems used for the purposes of law enforcement, migration, border control or asylum, where Union or national law considers the application of this requirement to be disproportionate.

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
Linktype	Issue
is related to	Annual
is related to	relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to	Technology
is related to	Protect
is related to	SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to	SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks	Inability to maintain individual accountability
blocks	Improper assignment of privileged functions
blocks	Privilege escalation
blocks	Unauthorized access
blocks	Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s)
blocks	Loss of integrity through unauthorized changes
blocks	Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences
blocks	Business interruption
blocks	Data loss / corruption
blocks	Reduction in productivity
blocks	Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to technical attack
blocks	Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non‐technical attack
blocks	Loss of revenue
blocks	Cancelled contract
blocks	Diminished competitive advantage
blocks	Diminished reputation
blocks	Fines and judgements
blocks	Unmitigated vulnerabilities
blocks	System compromise
blocks	Inability to support business processes
blocks	Incorrect controls scoping
blocks	Lack of roles & responsibilities
blocks	Inadequate internal practices
blocks	Inadequate third-party practices
blocks	Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks	Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks	Illegal content or abusive action
blocks	Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks	Improper response to incidents
blocks	Ineffective remediation actions
blocks	Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks	Inability to maintain situational awareness
blocks	Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks	Third-party physical security exposure
blocks	Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks	Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks	Use of product / service
blocks	Reliance on the third-party

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.