I4 (1.5 points)
https://knobit.org/id/task/dsec-access-design/I4
Also as Turtle · JSON-LD · RDF/XML
| dcterms:license | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
|---|---|
| owl:sameAs | https://bitbucket.org/reffa/ontology/id/task/dsec-access-design/I4 |
| rdfs:label | I4 (1.5 points) en |
| schema:hasPart | dsec-access-design I4: vulnerability, threat and risk told apart per finding |
| schema:hasPart | dsec-access-design I4: requirement sources classified by kind and place of publication |
| schema:hasPart | dsec-access-design I4: open questions sent to the role that decides them |
| schema:identifier | I4 |
| schema:position | 6 |
| schema:text | Security risk framing, 0.5 each. (a) Every finding separates the vulnerability (the weakness in the design) from the threat (who or what could exploit it) and rates the risk; at least the masking, SoD and agency findings do so correctly - not the same sentence in both fields. (b) The sources are classified by kind: SRC-1 and SRC-3 EU regulations, SRC-7 an EU directive binding the bank through the Estonian act transposing it, these three published in EUR-Lex; SRC-2 a national act published in Riigi Teataja; SRC-4 supervisory guidance; SRC-5 a contractual standard; SRC-6 internal policy. One slip tolerated. (c) Every open question goes to the role whose decision it is - business need to the data owner (Head of Collections, Head of Cards), special-category and personal-data questions to the DPO, security standards and privileged or emergency access to the CISO, contract terms to the Vendor Manager - and none goes to IT for a business decision. en |