THR-05: Insider Threat Awareness
Mechanisms exist to utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.
Control Question: Does the organization utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat?
General (26)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP Low+ | AT-02(02) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | AT-02(02) |
| GovRAMP High | AT-02(02) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | AT-2(2) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.2.3 |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.2.3[a] 3.2.3[b] |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.02.01.a.03 |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.02.01.a.03[01] A.03.02.01.a.03[02] |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-03 |
| SPARTA | CM0052 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | THR-05 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | THR-05 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | THR-05 |
US (14)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CJIS Security Policy 5.9.3 (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | AT.L2-3.2.3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | AT.L2-3.2.3 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | AT-2(2) |
| US IRS 1075 | AT-2(2) |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | AT-2(2) |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-1625 ISM-1626 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.02.01.A.03 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Threat Management (THR) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Threat management is decentralized.
- IT personnel subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Threat Management (THR) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for threat management. o Subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
- Threat management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- The HR department, in conjunction with cybersecurity personnel, helps ensure secure practices are implemented in personnel management operations to help manage threats.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel:
Level 3 — Well Defined
Threat Management (THR) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Subscribes to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats. o Develops Indicators of Exposure (IOE) to better understand potential attack vectors that attackers could use to attack the organization. o Implements a Threat Awareness Program (TAP) that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability. o Implements a “threat hunting” capability to actively identify internal threats.
- A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function:
- An Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT), or similar function, exists to form an on-demand, integrated team of cybersecurity, IT, data privacy and business function representatives that can execute coordinated incident response operations, including a cross-discipline incident handling capability.
- Cybersecurity personnel enable security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Threat Management (THR) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- 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.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.
Assessment Objectives
- THR-05_A01 potential indicators associated with insider threats are identified.
- THR-05_A02 security literacy training is provided to system users on recognizing indicators of insider threat.
- THR-05_A03 security literacy training is provided to system users on reporting indicators of insider threat.
- THR-05_A04 security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat is provided to managers and employees.
Evidence Requirements
- E-SAT-04 Recurring User Training
-
Documented evidence of recurring (e.g., annual) user training for cybersecurity and/or data privacy topics.
Education - E-SAT-05 Role-Based Training
-
Documented evidence of specialized user training for privileged users, executives, individuals who handle sensitive/regulated data, etc.
Education - E-THR-04 Threat Intelligence Program (TIP)
-
Documented evidence of a formal capability that intakes and analysis threat information to determine specific threat to the organization and necessary actions to mitigate the threat(s).
Threat Management