text: https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_Documentacion/pae_Metodolog/pae_Magerit.html?idioma=en 2 https://www.monarc.lu/

text: Security dimensions Origin (confidentiality, (deliberate, accidental, Supporting asset categories integrity and environmental) availability)

text: Hardware, Software/ap Locations and infrastructure C I A D A E devices, Personnel plications utilities (including ICT equipment services)

text: Organisational Hardware, Software/ap Locations and infrastructure C I A D A E devices, Personnel plications utilities (including ICT equipment services)

identifier: Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

title: Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: About ENISA

text: The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) is the EU’s agency dedicated to achieving a high common level of cybersecurity across Europe. Established in 2004 and strengthened by the EU Cybersecurity Act, ENISA contributes to EU cyber policy, enhances the trustworthiness of ICT products, services and processes with cybersecurity certification schemes, cooperates with EU Member States and EU bodies and helps Europe prepare for the cyber challenges of tomorrow. Through knowledge sharing, capacity building and awareness raising, the agency works together with its key stakeholders to strengthen trust in the connected economy, to boost resilience of the EU’s infrastructure and, ultimately, to keep Europe’s society and citizens digitally secure. More information about ENISA and its work can be found here: www.enisa.europa.eu. Authors Kostas Papadatos, Cyber Noesis Konstantinos Rantos, Cyber Noesis Argyris Makrygeorgou, Cyber Noesis Konstantinos Koulouris, Cyber Noesis Stefania Klontza, Cyber Noesis Costas Lambrinoudakis, University of Piraeus Stefanos Gritzalis, University of Piraeus Christos Xenakis, University of Piraeus Sokratis Katsikas, University of Piraeus Maria Karyda, University of Piraeus Aggeliki Tsochou, University of Piraeus Alexandros Zacharis, ENISA Legal notice Notice must be taken that this publication represents the views and interpretations of ENISA, unless stated otherwise. This publication should not be construed to be a legal action of ENISA or the ENISA bodies unless adopted pursuant to

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/881

text: . This publication does not necessarily represent the latest information and ENISA may update it from time to time. Third-party sources are quoted as appropriate. ENISA is not responsible for the content of the external sources, including external websites, referenced in this publication. This publication is intended for information purposes only. It must be accessible free of charge. Neither ENISA nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained in this publication. Copyright notice © European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), 2022 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Copyright for the image on the cover: © Shutterstock For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the ENISA copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 1 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023 Print ISBN 978-92-9204-609-5 doi:10.2824/713364 TP-04-22-275-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9204-608-8 doi:10.2824/68948 TP-04-22-275-EN-N

text: 2 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Contents

text: 1. INTRODUCTION 6 1.1. Purpose and scope 6 1.2. Report structure 6 1.3. Definitions of abbreviations 7 2. INTEROPERABLE EU RM TOOLBOX 8 2.1. Method of work 8 2.2. EU RM toolbox description 8 2.3. Toolbox components 10 2.3.1.Knowledge base 10 2.3.2.Functional components 15 3. METHOD OF USE 16 3.1. Basic concepts and terms 16 3.2. Risk evaluation against a specific threat 17 3.3. Use case development process 19 3 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox | FEBRUARY 2023 4. TOOLBOX EVOLVEMENT 20 5. CONCLUSIONS 22 A Annex I – Toolbox terminology 23 B Annex II – Toolbox asset classification 32 C Annex III – Toolbox threat taxonomy 33 D Annex IV – Toolbox impact scale 41 E Annex V – Toolbox risk scale 43 F ANNEX VI – Risk calculation interoperability samples 45 G Annex VII – Toolbox libraries 46 H Annex VIII – Use case example 47 Scenario description 47 Indicative assets in scope 47 Attack path 48 Attack scenarios 49 Deliverables 51 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES 52 4 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Executive summary

text: The benefits of the European digital economy and society can only be fully attained under the premise of cybersecurity. All layers of society can be affected and the EU needs to be ready to respond to massive (large-scale and cross-border) cyberattacks and cyber crises. Cross-border interdependencies have highlighted the need for effective cooperation between EU Member States and EU institutions for a faster response and proper coordination of efforts at all levels (strategic, operational, technical and communications). Under this perspective, it is important not only to define interoperable terms in EU risk management (RM) and regulatory frameworks, but also to develop common/comparative risk scales, which will allow for the interpretation of the risk analysis outputs that result from different RM methods, so that the risk levels are comparable. This document presents the EU RM toolbox, a solution proposed by ENISA to address interoperability concerns related to the use of information security RM methods. The toolbox aims to facilitate the smooth integration of various RM methods in an organisation’s environment or across organisations and bridge the gaps associated with the methods’ disparate respective approaches. With the help of the toolbox, shareholders will be able to have a common understanding of risks and report interoperable risk assessment results to the community and competent authorities. 5 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 1. Introduction

text: 1.1. Purpose and scope This report is part of ENISA’s project ‘Building interoperable EU risk management frameworks vol. 02’, which extends and builds on prior work carried out in 2021 and produced the following reports: 1. Interoperable EU Risk Management Framework (https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/interoperable-eu-risk-managementframework); 2. Compendium of Risk Management Frameworks with Potential Interoperability (https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/compendium-of-risk-managementframeworks). The interoperable EU RM toolbox (also referred to in this document as the ‘toolbox’) aims to provide a reference framework that supports the interpretation, comparison and aggregation of the results produced by different risk assessment methods. The EU RM toolbox will allow different stakeholders to work on common threats and risk scenarios and compare their risk levels, even if they are assessed through different or proprietary tools and methods. Such comparative results on the security posture of the organisations will allow different organisations, along with policymakers and regulators, to develop an integrated view on the cybersecurity posture of organisations against specific and/or emerging threats in specific sectors, and across different sectors and countries. To this end, the EU RM toolbox will provide directions and facilitate the comparison and interpretation of the cybersecurity readiness of different information systems infrastructures against a specific threat scenario or a set of threat scenarios (e.g. physical threats). The objective of this document is to define a scheme and the required set of components (common terminology, assets classification, threat taxonomy and impact/risk scales) that will allow for the interpretation of the risk analysis outputs that result from different RM frameworks. 1.2. Report structure This report includes four sections: Section 1 (Introduction) defines the toolbox’s purpose and scope; Section 2 (Interoperable EU RM toolbox) presents the concept, the scheme and the components of the toolbox; Section 3 (Method of use) outlines the way in which the EU RM toolbox will be used by stakeholders; and Section 4 (Toolbox evolvement) proposes ways in which the toolbox can be further enriched with additional information to achieve its long-term objectives. Section 5 (Conclusions) summarises our conclusions. This report also includes the following annexes: • Annex I – Terminology • Annex II – Assets • Annex III – Threats • Annex IV – Impact levels • Annex V – Risk levels • Annex VI – Risk calculation interoperability samples • Annex VII – Toolbox libraries • Annex VIII – Use case example. 6 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 1.3. Definitions of abbreviations The abbreviations used in this document and their definitions are listed below.

text: Abbreviation Definition

text: API application programming interface CIS communication and information system DSO distribution system operator ICT information and communications technology IoT internet of things IT information technology 2 IT security risk management methodology

text: ITSRM

text: NIS network and information systems OT operational technology RM risk management

text: 7 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 2. Interoperable EU RM toolbox

text: 2.1. Method of work The EU RM toolbox has been designed and developed by building on the directions provided in the 2022 ENISA report Interoperable EU Risk Management Framework, so as to facilitate the uptake of a coordinated and interoperable RM framework that would provide a consistent methodology and risk assessment practices among Member States. To design the EU RM toolbox, the results of assessing the potential interoperability of several prominent RM frameworks and methodologies, as included in the previous report, were considered. The toolbox is comprised of the main elements that were identified and assessed as important for the interoperability of RM methods, including the identification and categorisation of assets, the identification of threats, the description of attack scenarios, the assessment and comparison of risk levels, along with a common vocabulary that facilitates the understanding of the outcomes of different RM methods. Finally, also drawing from the outcome of the 2022 ENISA report Interoperable EU Risk Management Framework, the method used to apply the toolbox follows the basic RM processes included in ISO/IEC 27005:2018 and the information technology security risk management methodology (ITSRM ) method, as these were shown by the report to have provided extended opportunities for supporting interoperability. 2.2. EU RM toolbox description The EU RM toolbox aims to provide stakeholders with a reference framework to align their RM efforts so that they have a common understanding about risks and associated risk levels, regardless of the RM approach they adopt and the tool(s) they use. Having said that, the EU RM toolbox respects the peculiarities of the corresponding RM methods and does not modify the way that organisations have been working towards the management of their information security risks. With the EU RM toolbox, stakeholders will be able to use interoperable components to compare results with other organisations for specific risk scenarios, even when using different RM methods and tools. With the use of the EU RM toolbox, regulatory and supervisory bodies can have a horizontal view of the risk levels and the security posture of the organisations in a specific sector or in their domain of authority or jurisdiction, with regard to specific threats and risk scenarios (possible adverse events that can affect the organisation’s strategy and objectives), and can therefore appropriately guide them. The alignment of the stakeholders’ respective RM efforts and the normalisation of the corresponding results, using a reference framework and common metrics for risk levels, will help these entities better compare the outcomes and produce tangible results that will easily guide them in their follow-up activities. 8 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Figure 1: The role of the EU RM toolbox and its positioning in the RM process Figure 1 demonstrates the positioning of the EU RM toolbox with respect to the use case scenarios and the corresponding tools that the organisations utilise in their environment. The EU RM toolbox acts as an intermediate and abstract layer between the use case scenarios (i.e. the set of risk scenarios against which the organisation or a competent authority wants to assess risk levels) and the organisation-adopted RM methodology that is used for this assessment. To this end, the toolbox does not aim to alter the way that organisations manage risks internally. Instead, it provides stakeholders with the means to have a common understanding on risk scenarios and unambiguously interpret involved assets and threats prior to using the RM tools of their choice to assess risks, but also the means to interpret their calculated risk levels towards interoperable results. Having said that, the toolbox interprets risk scenarios developed using the toolbox’s terminology, assets classifications and threats taxonomies to the respective risk assessment methodologies, and normalises the risk assessment results to a common risk matrix that provides comparable results. Using the ITSRM as a reference framework for the RM activities, the EU RM toolbox facilitates the alignment of RM activities in four RM functions (Figure 1). • Establish a common understanding on the activities that will be undertaken during the RM process. The EU RM toolbox provides a set of interoperable terms based on RM and regulatory frameworks as well as international standards that are used to establish the context of RM. This allows for an unambiguous description and understanding of the RM activities, regardless of the RM methodology used. If necessary, mappings between the EU RM toolbox and respective RM methodologies 9 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: terminology will complement the toolbox in the future, so that no ambiguous activities will emerge. • Define the scope of the environment in which the risk assessment process will be applied. The EU RM toolbox contributes to this function by providing a classification of assets to categorise those involved in a risk scenario, and the organisation’s additional assets found in the scoped environment. This classification facilitates the development of unambiguous risk scenarios and the proper interpretation for the respective assets that will be considered in the risk assessment process. Having identified and classified their assets using the provided categories, the organisations will be able to identify whether and how a risk or attack scenario applies to their environment (i.e. check whether assets found in the organisation’s environment are used or are affected by a specific risk scenario). • Identify risk scenarios related to a specific threat or group of threats. The highlevel risk scenarios related to a specific threat or group of threats that are being investigated with the use of the EU RM toolbox must be mapped to the organisation’s environment to be properly assessed. Once a risk scenario has been chosen for assessment, it can utilise the threat taxonomy provided by the toolbox and the assets related to the risk scenario to map it to the corresponding internal RM method. This allows organisations to easily assess their risk levels and the security posture of their organisation for risk scenarios and proceed to the normalisation of the calculated results. • Map calculated risk values to a common risk scale. Having calculated the risk values using the chosen internal RM method, the organisation has to normalise the results based on a risk level mapping process, specifically designed for each RM method, and a set of pre-defined risk levels adopted by the toolbox. The mapping process utilises the risk scale of the chosen internal method and maps them to the toolbox risk scale, thus giving stakeholders the means to use a common reference scale to evaluate their risks. The toolbox is expected, in its future updated versions, to provide an extended set of mappings for various methods. Note that the terminology, assets classification, threats taxonomy, risk scale and, more importantly, the corresponding mappings of various RM methods to them, which will have the form of toolbox libraries, are envisioned as components that will be dynamically enriched to cover needs that stem from various applicable domains, but also from RM methods and tools as detailed in Section 4. Moreover, subsequent versions of the toolbox can also seek the development of a common set of measures that will also be mapped to the various methods, to facilitate the proper and unified treatment of risks. 2.3. Toolbox components The EU RM toolbox comprises several components that contribute either as functional components towards the alignment of RM activities, or as the knowledge base for risk assessment processes. The functional components bridge the gaps between the various risk assessment methods by aligning the respective RM functions to the EU RM toolbox. The knowledge base provides all the necessary information to the functional components to perform the mapping of risk scenarios to the RM methods and report risk levels. 2.3.1. Knowledge base The EU RM toolbox knowledge base, also referred to as definitions, has all the information required to align RM efforts with the main functions that comprise such a process. The knowledge base comprises: • terminology • assets classification 10 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: • threats taxonomy • impact/risk scale. Although this initial version of the EU RM toolbox provides foundational information towards interoperable risk assessment activities, it is expected that this knowledge base will be enriched with additional information that will further facilitate interoperability. Such information includes new categories of assets that fall outside this initial categorisation, emerging threats or threats that are related to specific environments (e.g. in industrial environments), and lists of security measures, as also explained in Section 4. Complementary to the definitions adopted by the toolbox are the mappings of those definitions to the respective components of the various RM methods. For a given RM methodology X, such mappings are anticipated to exist between the toolbox’s terminology and X’s terms, and between the toolbox’s asset classification and X’s assets categories. Similar mappings are expected for the threats taxonomy and the risk levels. These mappings are materialised in the form of libraries, and like the knowledge base will be enriched, through the functional components, and will be used by interested parties to provide interoperable RM results. More information about the toolbox’s functional components is provided in Section 2.3.2. 2.3.1.1. Terminology The main objective of the toolbox terminology component is to achieve a common understanding of the terms related to RM and to facilitate the interoperability among methodologies that use different terms for similar issues. Annex I lists the basic set of terms commonly used by various risk analysis frameworks/methodologies. The meaning of each term is also documented in the form of a glossary. The set of terms, together with their meanings, form the toolbox terminology or, in other words, the way each term is interpreted by the toolbox. To decide which terms will be adopted by the toolbox, the terms, and definitions of ISO/IEC 27005:2018 and ITSRM were extensively studied in order to cover, consolidate and link all the terms mentioned by these standards. 2.3.1.2. Assets classification The identification of the assets that need protection in an information system and the estimation of their value (in terms of the impact that the organisation will suffer in the event of an incident) are of crucial importance during a risk analysis. To this respect, the toolbox proposes specific asset categories (Annex II), explaining at the same time the assets included in each category, as follows. Primary assets • All core business processes and functions together with services provided to external parties. • Information/data serving a specific business process or activity of the organisation. Supporting assets • Hardware, devices, and equipment, including computing devices, network devices, media, internet of things (IoT) devices, operational technology (OT) devices, telecommunication devices, peripherals and storage devices. • Software and applications, such as system software and operating systems, firmware, middleware, package software and business / end user applications. Personnel, referring to roles involved in business processes and functions, user support, software development and maintenance, hardware support, delivery of services and information/data management. 11 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: • Location and utilities, including all relevant premises, such as buildings, rooms, offices, and containers, together with essential services and utilities provided by external operators/providers, power and water supply. • Organisational infrastructure, including policies, procedures and supporting information and communications technology (ICT) services (e.g. telecommunications, network, cloud, hosting). Achieving consensus on such an asset classification supports easier identification of threats per asset category, and thus on each member of that asset category. In addition, in terms of interoperability, it allows interested parties to easily map the assets of their organisation to the asset categories proposed by the toolbox. Similarly to the toolbox terminology, the choice of each asset category and its members was based on the categories adopted by ISO/IEC 27005:2018 and ITSRM , although adapted to the needs of the toolbox. For instance, there is not a distinct category in the toolbox terminology for network components since they have been included as members of the ‘Hardware’ category. Also, IoT and OT devices have been classified as hardware components. It is worth mentioning that the ‘Organisational infrastructure (including ICT services)’ category accommodates organisational roles, policies and procedures, along with ICT services such as telecommunications, network, cloud and hosting. Another important differentiation of the assets is that of primary assets and supporting assets. The primary assets are the business processes, functions and services, as well as any form of data. All the rest are considered as supporting assets. As such, they are considered as the asset that can be used to process and manage the primary assets, and are therefore the means by which a primary asset can be reached. 2.3.1.3. Threats taxonomy The toolbox also proposes a threat taxonomy (Annex III) that also draws on the directions provided in ISO/IEC 27005:2018 and ITSRM . Similarly to the approach followed for building the asset classification, the main threat categories that were identified are: • natural threats; • industrial threats; • errors and unintentional failures; • wilful attacks; • service-related threats (cloud services, services provided by third parties). Following the identification of threat categories, each individual threat has been included in a specific category. Furthermore, each threat is associated with the asset categories that it can affect (for instance, a threat may affect a hardware device but not a software application) and with the consequences that it may cause in terms of confidentiality, integrity and availability. Finally, the origin of the threat (deliberate, accidental, environmental) is accounted for. 2.3.1.4. Impact/risk scales The information security risk level is an indicator of the degree to which an organisation is affected by a potential cybersecurity event, and it is determined by the likelihood of the threat occurring and its impact on the organisation’s assets. There are typically three types of information security risk assessment methodologies: quantitative, qualitative, and semiquantitative. A qualitative risk assessment makes use of knowledge and experience to establish risk likelihood, while a quantitative risk assessment makes use of objective, 12 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: quantifiable facts to give insights into the RM process. A semi-quantitative risk assessment method typically utilises descriptive or numerical ratings. The risk calculation method of the EU RM toolbox adopts widely accepted approaches and considers impact and probability levels to calculate the information security risk according to the following equation. 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘 = (𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝) × (𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝) The probability of occurrence of a threat represents the assessment of the likelihood that a particular threat may exploit a specific vulnerability or collection of vulnerabilities. The probability of occurrence is used as one of the main factors in risk calculation, by the majority of the existing methods. However, it is not a standard value; it depends on the utilised method. For example, ITSRM adopts the following levels for the probability of occurrence for non-intentional threats: (i) every day; (ii) every month; (iii) once in a year; (iv) once in 10 years; and (v) once in a century. On the other hand, the risk management method Magerit adopts a four-level scale for the estimation of the likelihood of occurrence of a threat: (i) Daily; (ii) Monthly; (iii) Annually; and (iv) Every few years. The EU RM toolbox defines five discrete levels for the probability of occurrence of a threat. The probability levels are the following. • Very high: a threat event is almost highly likely to occur. o A threat event is highly likely to materialise because there are associated vulnerabilities that can be exploited and no adequate security measures to defend them are in place. • High: a threat event is likely to occur. o A threat event is likely to materialise because there are associated vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and ineffective or obsolete security measures to defend them are in place. • Moderate: a threat event could potentially occur. o A threat event could potentially materialise since there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and despite having been covered with security measures, better security measures could have been implemented. • Low: a threat event is unlikely to occur. o A threat event is not likely to materialise since all associated vulnerabilities have been covered with appropriate security measures. • Very low: a threat event is highly unlikely to occur. o A threat event is highly unlikely to materialise since all associated vulnerabilities have been covered with effective security measures. The impact level is the second parameter that influences the result of the information security risk. In general, impact is the level of damage that may be assessed as a result of various actions including, but not limited to, the repercussions of illegal information disclosure, unlawful information modification, unauthorised information destruction, or loss of information or information system availability. The impact is used by the majority of the existing methods that aim to calculate the information security risk. However, as with the probability of occurrence, impact is also not a standard value; it depends on the utilised method. For instance, the impact scale in ITSRM has 10 distinct levels. In addition, the value depends on 10 discrete parameters, such as the financial loss due to an event. On the other hand, the risk management method Monarc scores the impact from 0 to 4, and its value depends on the impact of various 13 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: parameters (such as confidentiality, integrity, availability, reputation, operational, legal, financial and personal) that may be affected after the event of a cybersecurity incident. The EU RM toolbox defines the following five impact levels, which are further detailed in terms of operational, legal, financial and other implications in Annex IV. • Very high: severe – the impact for the organisation is considered severe as it is expected to have extreme consequences and implications. • High: significant – the impact for the organisation is considered critical as it is expected to have major consequences and implications. • Moderate: moderate – the impact for the organisation is considered moderate, as it is expected to have moderate consequences and implications. • Low: minor – the impact for the organisation is considered minor, as it is expected to have marginal consequences and implications. • Very low: negligible – the impact for the organisation is considered negligible, as it is expected to have insignificant consequences and implications. Note that, depending on the RM methodology, the impact levels might be considered during the early stages of the risk assessment method, where the valuation of the assets for the organisation is being calculated. Having considered the impact level for the organisation’s assets and the probability of occurrence of a threat event, the calculation of the risk levels follows, in a non-standardised manner. The various RM methods follow different approaches. For instance, ITSRM calculates the risk that fluctuates from 1 to 50 separating it in five discrete ranges. On the other hand, Monarc assesses the risk from 0 to 16 within three ranges. Although many methods do not classify or map risk values to levels, for the common understanding of the corresponding risk values and the levels of risks the organisation experiences for specific threats, the toolbox defines a scale that comprises five such risk levels that would facilitate the interoperable evaluation of the risk values reported by the organisations. These levels are heavily affected by the various levels of impact and probability, as demonstrated by the risk matrix shown in Figure 2. The details of the risk levels – very low (VL), low (L), moderate (M), high (H) and very high (VH) – are analysed in Annex V. We can observe that the five discrete cybersecurity risk levels come from specific scenarios that combine various levels of impact and probability. Figure 2: EU RM toolbox risk matrix 14 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 2.3.2. Functional components The functional components of the EU RM toolbox provide the mappings between the toolbox’s knowledge base (terminology, assets, threats, risk scale) and the respective components adopted by the various RM methodologies. More specifically, the anticipated contribution of the EU RM toolbox functional components is to support the comparison of the results produced by different RM methodologies and to facilitate the common understanding of the various terms adopted by them. The functional components of the EU RM toolbox are the following: • terminology mapping • assets mapping • threats mapping • risk levels mapping. As already presented, through the knowledge base, the toolbox proposes specific RM terms, asset categories, threat categories and risk levels. The functionality provided by the aforementioned components enables the mapping of the toolbox’s terms/meanings/categories with the respective ones used by other RM methodologies. This mapping has already been performed between the toolbox’s proposals and the ISO/IEC 27005:2018 and ITSRM . However, it is expected that the toolbox’s knowledge base will be continuously enhanced. This is anticipated to be accomplished by the community during the assessment of risk scenarios using, for instance, methodologies that have not been considered so far, and therefore not included in the toolbox’s knowledge base. In this case, the involved parties have to undertake the effort to conduct this interoperability mapping between the respective components, and the result can feed the toolbox’s libraries and knowledge base, to be used by subsequent activities. 15 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 3. Method of use

text: This section outlines the way in which the EU RM toolbox will be used by stakeholders, which include, but are not limited to, the following groups. • Computer security incident response teams, and national or other competent authorities, such as a Member State’s network and information systems (NIS) competent authority, at a Member State, EU or international level, who have a (legitimate) interest to assess organisations’ risk levels or readiness against specific threats. These entities might operate in a specific domain or geographical area. • Collaborating organisations in a specific domain or geographical area, with similar concerns and interests. • Single organisations who might utilise different risk assessment tools over time. The EU RM toolbox can help the above entities establish common grounds on the way they assess risks in their environment and have a common understanding on their respective risk levels and comparable results. Once the competent authority or organisation decides upon deploying the EU RM toolbox to address RM interoperability concerns, it has to incorporate the EU RM toolbox methodology into their RM strategy. This integration is not anticipated to affect its existing risk assessment practices, as the toolbox and its respective components only encapsulate existing RM processes to provide interoperable findings. The role of each of the toolbox components in this process is affected by the usage scenario. There are two main usage scenarios anticipated for the toolbox. 1. The evaluation of organisations’ readiness against a specific threat. In this case, the EU RM toolbox will be used for a specific set of risk scenarios. 2. The evaluation of organisations’, either overall or for a specific service, security posture. In this case, the organisations will run the risk assessment process, develop various risk scenarios and assess risks for each one of these, and focus only on the toolbox’s risk levels component to report the outcomes. In the following section we provide details about the first scenario, which involves the use of all the toolbox’s components. 3.1. Basic concepts and terms The EU RM toolbox (also referred to in this document as the ‘toolbox’) provides the means to assess risk levels associated with adverse events adapted to the organisations’ environments and the distinctive features of the respective RM approaches adopted by organisations. Prior to providing details about the EU RM toolbox, it is useful to provide a description of the basic concepts and terms that are used throughout this document. The terms risk scenario and attack scenario are used interchangeably to denote the description of a possible adverse event that can affect the organisation’s strategy and objectives. The attack scenario describes the assets that are at risk or involved in the risk scenario, the actual threat, and the assets’ security dimension that this threat can affect. 16 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: The EU RM toolbox has been designed to consider risk scenarios, or a set of them, that are associated with a specific attack step and are part of a use case scenario. This approach is mostly appropriate when malicious activities associated with a campaign, bound to comprise a set of attack scenarios, need to be considered by interested parties. This does not, however, preclude the use of the toolbox for the assessment of single attack scenarios that are related to granular attack techniques and specific assets. Each attack scenario is typically part of the attack step, as shown in Figure 3. Likewise, the use case scenario might comprise several attack steps that the organisations should assess. Figure 3: Use case scenarios, attack steps and attack scenarios 3.2. Risk evaluation against a specific threat Let’s assume that a NIS competent authority, the NIS Cooperation Group or another competent authority wants to identify risk levels across the EU against an emerged threat. The details of this threat and the types of systems that it targets form the so-called incident scenario that the competent authority wants to assess. The competent authority is keen to identify risk levels for a specific group of organisations that belong to the target group of the threat actors. To be able to compare the reported results, the organisations have to provide comparable results to the competent authority using a common reference framework, as opposed to the respective results provided by their corresponding RM tools. At the same time, in order to have a common understanding of the scenarios they have to consider, the organisations have to be able to unambiguously adapt the scenario described by the competent authority to their own tools and environment, so that all the related attack/risk scenarios that are part of the overall incident scenario are examined. Considering that the incident scenario entails many attack/risk scenarios (see Section 3.1) that map to the attack path, the competent authority wants to know risk levels associated with each step of this path. This typically implies that each attack scenario should be represented as a set of triplets, each comprising of <asset(s), threat(s), impact> that will be used as the basis to calculate the corresponding risk levels. While the impact reflects to the well-established security dimensions (confidentiality (C), integrity (I) and availability (A)), the assets and threats do not enjoy commonly accepted taxonomies and lists. The toolbox corresponding components will be used to define the risk scenarios, which then need to be adapted to each RM method with the help of the toolbox mappings. Having said that, the use of the EU RM toolbox requires the following steps. 1. The competent authority establishes a set of attack/risk scenarios that either map to the attack path of the emerged threat, or the competent authority considers essential to evaluate. The attack scenarios should use the toolbox terms, list of assets and list of threats. 17 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 2. The participating organisations have to map the defined attack/risk scenarios to their environment to allow them to assess the corresponding risks using their own respective methodology. This process requires the use of the toolbox libraries, which might already have mappings about the organisation’s chosen RM methodology. If such mappings are not available, they have to be enriched accordingly. In each of these steps the organisation has to consult the toolbox terms to unambiguously interpret each of the attack/risk scenarios. a. More specifically, the organisation establishes the context for the examined incident scenario. That is, it has to identify the assets that are involved in the attack/risk scenarios and map them to their environment and the types of assets that their methodology defines. As noted above, the toolbox libraries might already provide the mapping of the toolbox assets to the organisation’s methodology types of assets. If not, the participating experts have to propose their mapping and enrich the toolbox libraries. b. Following the context establishment and the identified assets, the organisation has to unambiguously identify the threats addressed by the attack/risk scenarios of the incident scenario. The list of threats that the incident scenario addresses are from the toolbox’s threats taxonomy, which do not necessarily directly map to the organisation’s methodology threats taxonomy. To bridge this gap, a threats mapping library for the corresponding risk methodology must be developed, if none already exist. This threats mapping library will be gradually enriched. Note that during this process, new threats or threat categories can also be introduced to the toolbox threat taxonomy. So, as with the list of assets, there are two cases. i. A mapping between the toolbox-adopted list of threats and the organisation’s chosen methodology list of threats is already available in the toolbox’s library. In this case, the organisation has to choose the corresponding threats for the attack/risk scenarios. ii. There is no available mapping, and therefore the organisation has to run this task internally and, as a result, enrich the toolbox libraries. c. Having identified and mapped the list of assets and threats, the organisation has to assess risks for each of the requested attack/risk scenarios. If the method considers vulnerabilities in the risk assessment process, these have to be properly identified for the involved assets and used in the risk calculation process. 3. The calculated risk values for the corresponding risk scenarios provide valuable information to the organisation that has been using the specific methodologies. This information, however, is not meaningful to the competent authority that does not want or have to know the peculiarities of each RM method. The last step in the toolbox usage process is to normalise risk assessment results to the toolbox risk scales. This can be done using the toolbox libraries if such a mapping between the toolbox risk scales and the organisation’s RM methodology’s scales exist. If not, the organisation has to undertake the mapping process and enrich the toolbox libraries. 4. The competent authority collects the outcomes of the above process conducted in the organisation’s environment and based on the reported results, it either has the information it needs to evaluate the organisations’ security posture or has to conduct the last step itself. Note that in this process, not all of the initially defined attack/risk scenarios are necessarily applicable to all environments. Depending on the system modelling of the organisation and the dependencies between a threat and primary assets and how a threat can affect a primary asset through other additional supporting assets, the organisation will decide the applicability of each of the attack/risk scenarios. 18 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Figure 1: EU RM toolbox processes diagram 3.3. Use case development process The toolbox can be used by a competent authority to assess organisations’ risk levels against an incident scenario. An incident scenario, as previously defined, is used by a competent authority to describe a set of threats against which the participating organisations will assess their posture. It aims to guide the organisations in considering specific threats and narrow down the scope of the attack path and the number of attack/risk scenarios that the participating organisations have to consider. Therefore, an incident scenario is anticipated to include the following information. 1. Description of the scenario. This outlines the incident scenario that the competent authority addresses in the scenario. 2. Indicative assets in scope. The scenario has to provide a list of assets, primary or supporting, that are affected or used by the threat actors during their campaign. 3. Attack path. This outlines the steps that are typically followed by the threat actors to give the participating entities a better understanding about the incident scenario and the set of threats that are being examined. 4. Attack scenarios. They form a list of triplets about the involved or affected assets, the considered threat and the corresponding impact (i.e. the security dimension that is affected by this threat) for the corresponding steps outlined in the attack path. A use case example can be found in Annex VIII. 19 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 4. Toolbox evolvement

text: The EU RM toolbox is envisioned as a reference tool that will be enriched with additional information to achieve its objectives. This is anticipated to occur at various levels that correspond to the toolbox’s knowledge base, which comprises the set of toolbox definitions (i.e. terminology, assets classification, threats taxonomy and impact/risk scale), but also the mappings to other methodologies’ components, as shown in Figure 5. The toolbox’s definitions are expected to be reviewed and enriched by the community so that the needs of all the domains that will adopt the EU RM toolbox will be addressed. Examples of these enhancements include impact justifications for the various levels that are adapted to specific domains, such as the energy domain, or set of threats that are more meaningful to the specific domain. Another important component of the EU RM toolbox is the set of interoperability libraries, which will provide the mappings of the toolbox definitions to other RM methodologies. These libraries can be the result of the use of the toolbox by the community, where the involved parties will undergo the process of conducting this mapping between the toolbox and their own RM methodology components, if these are not already available, and provide their feedback to enrich the toolbox libraries. This will help subsequent efforts or users and will result in an integrated tool that will help organisations compare their risk levels. Similarly to the definitions and the interoperability libraries, a third set of valuable information that will complement the toolbox is the use cases descriptions, which can act either as templates for subsequent risk assessment processes, or as specific scenarios that can be applied on domains or organisations. 20 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023 Figure 2: EU RM toolbox evolvement

text: 21 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 5. Conclusions

text: This deliverable has presented the main components of the EU RM toolbox, which serves as a reference framework for aligning different RM efforts and thus achieving a common understanding about risks and associated risk levels, regardless of the RM approach adopted and the tool(s) used by organisations. Through the proposed EU RM toolbox, different stakeholders will be able to compare their RM results, for specific risk scenarios, with other organisations that may use different RM methods/tools. Furthermore, regulatory and supervisory bodies will be supported with regard to the overall view of the risk levels and the security posture of organisations in a specific sector or across various sectors. The main RM functions supported by the EU RM toolbox are: • the establishment of a common understanding on the activities undertaken during the RM process; • a definition of the scope of the environment in which the risk assessment process will be applied; • the identification of risk scenarios related to a specific threat or threats that are being investigated; • mapping of the calculated risk levels to those defined by a common risk scale. It is vital to stress that the knowledge base provided by the toolbox (sets of terms, classification of assets and threats) will be dynamically enriched to cover additional methods and tools, along with other domains. Moreover, subsequent versions of the toolbox can seek the development of a common set of measures that will also be mapped to the various methods, to facilitate the proper and unified risk treatment. 22 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: A Annex I – Toolbox terminology

text: This annex contains a list of terms that form the toolbox terminology. Table 1: Interoperable EU RM toolbox terminology

text: Frameworks and methodologies / Toolbox glossary Related terms terminology

text: Access control Means to ensure that access to assets is authorised and restricted based on business and security requirements.

text: Asset An asset is anything that has value to the organisation and therefore requires protection. For the identification of assets, it should be borne in mind that an information system consists of more than hardware and software.

text: Asset owner An asset owner should be identified for each asset to System owner provide responsibility and accountability for the asset. The asset owner perhaps does not have property rights to the asset, but has responsibility for its production, development, maintenance, use and security as appropriate. The asset owner is often the most suitable person to determine the asset’s value to the organisation.

text: Asset value Value of the asset assessed in terms of the maximum impact Information technology (business or data protection) in the event of loss of security (IT) security need dimensions (confidentiality, integrity, availability); this is also known as the security need.

text: Attack path Set of deliberate actions to realise a threat scenario. -

text: Attack scenario See ‘Risk scenario’. Risk scenario

text: Attack step A set of attack scenarios related to a malicious activity. -

text: Attack Attempt to destroy, expose, alter, disable, steal or gain unauthorised access to or make unauthorised use of an asset.

text: Audit Systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled.

text: Audit events Ensure that activity on the system leaves a record that provides reliable after-the-fact investigations of security incidents.

text: Audit scope Extent and boundaries of an audit. -

text: Authentication Provision of assurance that a claimed characteristic of an entity is correct.

text: Authenticity Property that an entity is what it claims to be. -

text: 23 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Availability Property of being accessible and usable upon request by an authorised entity.

text: Base measure Measure defined in terms of an attribute and the method for quantifying it.

text: Business manager Role responsible for ensuring that an organisation’s function fulfils the business and user needs.

text: Competence Ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results.

text: Communication Any system enabling the handling of information in electronic Information system and information form, including all assets required for its operation, along system (CIS) with infrastructure, organisation, personnel and information resources. This definition includes business applications, shared IT services, outsourced systems and end user devices.

text: Confidentiality Property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorised individuals, entities or processes.

text: Conformity Fulfilment of a requirement. -

text: Consequence Outcome of an event affecting objectives. -

text: Continual Recurring activity to enhance performance. Information security improvement continuity

text: Control Measure that modifies risk – control is also used as a Measure-security synonym to safeguard or countermeasure. measure

text: Control objective Statement describing what is to be achieved as a result of implementing controls.

text: Correction Action to eliminate a detected nonconformity. -

text: Corrective action Action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence.

text: Data controller The natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

text: Data owner The individual responsible for ensuring the protection and use of a specific dataset handled by a CIS.

text: Dataset A set of information that serves a specific business process or activity.

text: Data subject Any person whose personal data is being collected, held or processed.

text: Derived measure Measure that is defined as a function of two or more values of base measures.

text: 24 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Documented Information required to be controlled and maintained by an information organisation and the medium on which it is contained.

text: Easiness Valuation of the effort required to materialise a given intentional threat.

text: Effectiveness Extent to which planned activities are realised and planned results achieved.

text: Event Occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances. Incident An event can sometimes be referred to as an incident or accident.

text: External context External environment in which the organisation seeks to achieve its objectives.

text: Frequency Description of the quantitative or qualitative values used to express the periodicity of accidental threats from materialising.

text: Function The processing of information comprises all functions of a - CIS with regard to datasets, including creation, modification, display, storage, transmission, deletion and archiving of information. Processing of information can be provided by a CIS as a set of functionalities to users and as IT services to other CIS.

text: Governance of System by which an organisation’s information security information activities are directed and controlled. security

text: Governing body Person or group of people who are accountable for the performance and conformity of the organisation.

text: Impact Adverse change to the level of business objectives achieved. -

text: Impact scenario Combination of primary asset, security dimension - (confidentiality, integrity or availability), impact type, effects and level related to the worst-case scenarios described by the organisation to determine the primary asset values.

text: Incident An event that has been assessed as having an actual or Event potentially adverse effect on the security or performance of a system. An event can sometimes be referred to as an incident or accident.

text: Incident scenario An incident scenario is the description of a threat exploiting a certain vulnerability or set of vulnerabilities in an information security incident. The impact of the incident scenarios is to be determined considering impact criteria defined during the context establishment activity. It can affect one or more assets or part of an asset. Thus, assets can have assigned values both for their financial cost and because of the business consequences if they are damaged or compromised. Consequences can be of a temporary nature or permanent as in the case of the destruction of an asset.

text: 25 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Indicator Measure that provides an estimate or evaluation. -

text: Inherent risk The risk without taking any security measure into account. - Inherent risk represents the amount of risk that exists in the absence of controls (FAIR Institute). Inherent risk is the current risk level given the existing set of controls rather than the hypothetical notion of an absence of any controls (FAIR Institute). ISO does not define the notion of inherent risk, but it could be defined by opposition to the notion of residual risk as: risk existing before risk treatment.

text: Information need Insight necessary to manage objectives, goals, risks and problems.

text: Information Any information processing system, service or infrastructure, processing or the physical location housing it. facilities

text: Information Preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of security information.

text: Information Processes and procedures for ensuring continued Continual improvement security continuity information security operations.

text: Information Identified occurrence of a system, service or network state security event indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of controls, or a previously unknown situation that can be security relevant.

text: Information Event that could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity security incident or availability of a CIS.

text: Information Set of processes for detecting, reporting, assessing, security incident responding to, dealing with and learning from information management security incidents.

text: Information Person who establishes, implements, maintains and Security risk manager security continuously improves one or more information security management management system processes. system professional

text: Information Group of organisations that agree to share information. sharing community

text: Information Set of applications, services, IT assets or other information- CIS system handling components.

text: Integrity Property of accuracy and completeness. -

text: Interest The level of interest of an adversary to commit a threat on a given primary asset.

text: Interested party Person or organisation that can affect, be affected by or Stakeholders (preferred term) – perceive itself to be affected by a decision or activity. organisation

text: 26 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: stakeholder (admitted term) Internal context Internal environment in which the organisation seeks to achieve its objectives. IT security need See ‘Asset value’. Asset value IT security risk See ‘Risk’. Risk Level of risk Magnitude of a risk expressed in terms of the combination of consequences and their likelihood. Likelihood Chance of something happening. - Local informatics Officer who is responsible for IT security liaison for a security officer commission department. Management Set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organisation system to establish policies and objectives and processes to achieve those objectives. Measure See ‘Security measure’. Security measure – control Measurement Process to determine a value. - Measurement Algorithm or calculation performed to combine two or more function base measures. Measurement Logical sequence of operations, described generically, used method in quantifying an attribute with respect to a specified scale. Mitigation factor Percentage of the risk (likelihood and/or consequence) that is reduced by a security measure. Monitoring Determining the status of a system, a process or an activity. - Nonconformity Non-fulfilment of a requirement. - Non-repudiation Ensure that actors who have carried out specific types of actions cannot falsely deny later that they have carried them out. Objective Result to be achieved. - Organisation See ‘Interested party’ and ‘Stakeholder’. Interested party – stakeholder Outsource Make an arrangement where an external organisation performs part of an organisation’s function or process. Performance Measurable result. - Personal data Any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (data subject).

text: 27 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Policy Intentions and direction of an organisation, as formally expressed by its top management. Potential Individual or group interested in provoking loss of adversary confidentiality, integrity and/or availability of an organisation’s assets. Power The combination of a potential adversary knowledge, its capabilities and the resources to perform an attack successfully. Primary asset Data and business processes/functions. - Process Set of interrelated or interacting activities that transforms inputs into outputs. Reliability Property of consistent intended behaviour and results. - Requirement Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory. Residual risk Risk remaining after risk treatment. - Review Activity undertaken to determine the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the subject matter to achieve established objectives. Review object Specific item being reviewed. - Review objective Statement describing what is to be achieved as a result of a review. Risk Effect of uncertainty on objectives. IT security risk Risk acceptance Terms of reference against which a risk is accepted. - Risk acceptance Criteria used for accepting a risk. criteria Risk analysis Process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk. Risk assessment Overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. Risk avoidance The activity or condition that gives rise to the particular risk that should be avoided. Risk Set of continual and iterative processes that an organisation communication conducts to provide, share or obtain information, and to and consultation engage in dialogue with stakeholders regarding the management of risk. Risk criteria Terms of reference against which the significance of risk is evaluated.

text: 28 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Risk evaluation Process of comparing the results of risk analysis with risk criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable. Risk identification Process of finding, recognising and describing risks. - Risk management Coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to risk. Risk management Systematic application of management policies, procedures process and practices to the activities of communicating, consulting, establishing the context and identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk. Risk mitigation Risk treatments that deal with negative consequences. - Risk modification A process where the level of risk is managed by introducing, removing or altering controls so that the residual risk can be reassessed as being acceptable. Risk owner Person or entity with the accountability and authority to manage a risk. Risk reduction Actions taken to lessen the probability, negative consequences, or both, associated with a risk. Risk retention A risk treatment option where the risk is retained without further action. Risk scenario A combination of involved assets, threat and affected Attack scenario security dimension. Risk sharing Sharing the risk with another party that can most effectively manage the particular risk depending on risk evaluation. Risk study Set of information gathered and results obtained when performing RM activities. It mainly consists of: — a description of the CIS and its environment; — the risks with inherent and residual levels; — the security measures.

text: Risk transfer Sharing with another party the burden of loss or benefit of gain, for a risk. Replaced by ‘Risk sharing’. Risk treatment Process to modify risk. It can involve: - — avoiding the risk by deciding not to start or continue with the activity that gives rise to the risk; — taking or increasing risk in order to pursue an opportunity; — removing the risk source; — changing the likelihood;

text: 29 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: — changing the consequences; — sharing the risk with another party or parties (including contracts and risk financing); — retaining the risk by informed choice.

text: Security measure Actionable control that can be implemented according to a Measure – control priority level to mitigate a risk.

text: Security risk The person responsible for the RM activities. Information security manager management system professional

text: Scale Ordered set of values, continuous or discrete, or a set of categories to which the attribute is mapped.

text: Service A service is a means of delivering data processing (datasets and functions) to customers, internally or externally. An IT service is made up of a combination of IT products (hardware and software), people and locations.

text: Shared service A service is shared when its risk study is published, entirely or partially, by its service provider to be reused in risk studies of CIS that are using the service.

text: Stakeholders Internal and external organisations or people with an interest Interested party – in the target system data and functions. organisation

text: Sophistication Scale used to measure the technical level of implementation level (effectiveness) of security measures.

text: Supporting asset Assets used or involved in the processing of the data and functions/services provided by the target system.

text: System model Representation of the architecture of the system in relation to the supporting assets used to manage the data and functions (primary assets) managed by the target system.

text: System owner Individual responsible for the overall procurement, Asset owner development, integration, modification, operation, maintenance and retirement of a CIS.

text: System security Advises the system owner, system manager and project officer manager on the IT security approach, and takes an active role as IT security expert to define IT security requirements and assists in the architecture, design, implementation and verification activities of IT security.

text: Security Document specifying authorised ways for realising security. implementation standard

text: Target of a The place where the measure can be actually implemented. security measure Such target can be the organisation (e.g. a general security policy), the system (e.g. RM, code review, vulnerability scan) or a particular supporting asset (e.g. encryption on a data link or a hard disk, access control to an operating system).

text: 30 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Target system The specific CIS subject to the execution of an RM process. -

text: Threat Potential cause of an unwanted incident, which can result in harm to a system or organisation.

text: Threat scenario A set of discrete threat events, associated with a specific threat source or multiple threat sources, partially ordered in time.

text: Top management Person or group of people who direct and control an organisation at the highest level.

text: Trusted Autonomous organisation supporting information exchange information within an information sharing community. communication entity

text: User Any individual who uses a functionality provided by a CIS, whether inside or outside the organisation.

text: Use case scenario Use case description of the sequence of events from the user’s perspective to perform a task in a specified context.

text: Vulnerability Weakness of an asset or control that can be exploited by one or more threats.

text: 31 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: B Annex II – Toolbox asset classification

text: This annex provides the classification of assets adopted by the EU RM toolbox. Table 2: Interoperable EU RM toolbox assets

text: RM toolbox

text: Assets

text: Definition Subcategories/examples Primary assets: generic description

text: Business processes, Include all core business processes and Business processes, functions functions, functions, and services provided to and services. services external parties.

text: Information and data in all forms A set of information/data that serves a Information/data (storage, transmission, etc.) that specific business process or activity of the are of value. organisation.

text: Supporting assets: generic description

text: All physical elements/devices Computing devices (e.g. endpoint devices, and equipment supporting servers), network devices and media, IoT

text: Hardware, devices and equipment

text: business processes, functions devices, OT devices, telecommunication and services. devices, peripherals and storage devices.

text: System software (e.g. operating systems), Software and applications Software and applications. firmware, middleware, package software, business / end user applications.

text: Personnel with roles involved in business processes and functions, user support, software Decision-makers, users, developers, Personnel development and maintenance, administrators, operators, maintenance hardware support, delivery of personnel, contractors. services and information / data management.

text: Locations and premises, such as buildings, rooms, offices and containers. Premises containing / related to Mobile platforms such as trucks, cars,

text: Location and utilities

text: primary and supporting assets. ships. Essential services and utilities provided by external operators/providers, power and water supply, etc.

text: Organisational infrastructure including Roles, management and Organisational infrastructure roles, policies, procedures and ICT supporting activities and ICT (including ICT services) services (telecommunications, network, services. cloud, hosting, etc.).

text: 32 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: C Annex III – Toolbox threat taxonomy

text: This annex provides the threat taxonomy adopted by EU RM toolbox. NB: A short description of each threat can be found in Table 4 of this annex. Table 3: Interoperable EU RM toolbox threat catalogue

text: Threat category Threat Organisational

text: Natural Fire X X X X

text: Natural Flood X X X X

text: Natural Major accident X X X X

text: Natural Other natural disasters X X X X

text: Industrial Fire X X X X X

text: Industrial Water damage X X X X X

text: Industrial Other industrial disasters X X X X X

text: Industrial Environmental pollution X X X X X X Electromagnetic / thermal Industrial X X X X X X radiation Hardware or software Industrial X X X X X failure

text: Industrial Power interruption X X X X X

text: Unsuitable temperature or Industrial X X X X X humidity conditions Communications services Industrial X X X X failure Interruption of other Industrial services or essential X X X X X supplies Media/equipment Industrial X X X X degradation Electromagnetic Industrial X X X X emanations

text: 33 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Threat category Threat

text: Errors and unintentional User errors X X X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional System/security X X X X X X X failures administrator errors Errors and unintentional Monitoring errors (logs) X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Configuration errors X X X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Organisational X X X failures deficiencies Errors and unintentional Malware diffusion X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional (Re)routing errors X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Sequence errors X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Accidental alteration of X X X X X X X failures the information Errors and unintentional Destruction of information X X X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Information leaks X X X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Software vulnerabilities X X X X X failures Errors and unintentional Defects in software X X X X failures maintenance / updating Errors and unintentional Defects in hardware X X X failures maintenance / updating Errors and unintentional System failure due to X X X X failures exhaustion of resources Errors and unintentional Retrieval of recycled or X X X X failures discarded media Errors and unintentional Breach of personnel X X X failures availability Manipulation of activity Wilful attacks X X X X X records (log) Manipulation of the Wilful attacks X X X X X X X configuration files Wilful attacks Masquerading of identity X X X X X

text: Abuse of access Wilful attacks X X X X X X X privileges Wilful attacks Misuse X X X X X X X

text: 34 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Threat category Threat

text: Wilful attacks Malware diffusion X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks (Re)routing of messages X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Sequence alteration X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Unauthorised access X X X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Traffic analysis X X X

text: Repudiation (denial of Wilful attacks X X X actions) Wilful attacks Eavesdropping X X X Deliberate alteration of Wilful attacks X X X X X X X information

text: Wilful attacks Destruction of information X X X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Disclosure of information X X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Tampering with software X X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Tampering with hardware X X X

text: Wilful attacks Denial of services X X X X Theft of media or Wilful attacks X X X X documents

text: Wilful attacks Theft of equipment X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Destructive attack X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Enemy overrun X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Staff shortage X X X

text: Wilful attacks Extortion X X X X X

text: Wilful attacks Social engineering X X X X X

text: Service-related threats (cloud services, services Loss of governance X X X X provided by third parties) Service-related threats (cloud services, services Lock-in X X X provided by third parties) Service-related threats (cloud services, services Isolation failure X X X X X X provided by third parties)

text: 35 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Threat category Threat

text: Service-related threats Management interface (cloud services, services X X X X compromise provided by third parties) Service-related threats Insecure or ineffective (cloud services, services X X X X deletion of data provided by third parties) Service-related threats Compromise of service (cloud services, services X X X X X X engine provided by third parties) Service-related threats (cloud services, services Subpoena and e-discovery X X X X X provided by third parties) Service-related threats Risk from changes of (cloud services, services X X X X X jurisdiction provided by third parties) Service-related threats (cloud services, services Data protection risks X X X provided by third parties) Service-related threats User privacy and (cloud services, services X X secondary usage of data provided by third parties) Service-related threats Incidence analysis and (cloud services, services X X X X forensic support provided by third parties) Service-related threats Insecure interfaces and (cloud services, services application programming X X X X X provided by third parties) interfaces (APIs)

text: 36 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Table 4: Interoperable EU RM toolbox threat description

text: Threat category Threat Threat description

text: Natural Fire Possibility that the fire destroys system resources.

text: Natural Flood Possibility that the water destroys system resources.

text: Natural Major accident Incidents that occur without human involvement (lightning, electric storm, earthquake, cyclone, etc.).

text: External event or damage linked to the natural environment close to the assets and capable of

text: Natural Other natural disasters

text: causing them very serious physical damage.

text: Industrial Fire Possibility that the fire destroys system resources (terrorism, vandalism, etc.).

text: Industrial Water damage Possibility that the water destroys the system’s resources (leaks, floods, terrorism, vandalism, etc.).

text: Accidental disasters due to human activity (explosions, collapses, chemical pollution, electrical

text: Industrial Other industrial disasters

text: overloads, electrical fluctuations, etc.).

text: Industrial Environmental pollution Presence of dust, vapours, corrosive or toxic gases in the ambient air.

text: Electromagnetic/thermal Radio interference, magnetic fields, ultraviolet light, etc. Thermal effect caused by damage or

text: Industrial

text: radiation exceptional weather conditions. Damage causing an exceptional electromagnetic effect.

text: Industrial Hardware or software failure Failures in the equipment and/or programmes.

text: Failure, shutdown or incorrect sizing of the power supply to the assets arising either from the

text: Industrial Power interruption supplier’s service or from the internal distribution system. Sabotage or disturbance of the electrical

text: installation.

text: Unsuitable temperature or Deficiencies in the air conditioning of the premises that exceed the working limits for the equipment

text: Industrial

text: humidity conditions (excess heat, excess cold, excess humidity, etc.).

text: Communications services

text: Industrial A cut in the capability to transmit data from one place to another.

text: failure Interruption of other services or

text: Industrial Interruption of services or resources on which the operation of the equipment depends.

text: essential supplies

text: A logical or physical event causing an equipment item to malfunction or as the result of the passing

text: Industrial Media/equipment degradation

text: of time.

text: Almost all electrical devices emit radiation to the exterior that can be intercepted by other equipment

text: Industrial Electromagnetic emanations

text: (radio receivers), causing a leak of information.

text: Errors and unintentional Mistakes made by people when using the services, data, etc. A person commits an operating error,

text: User errors

text: failures input error or utilisation error on hardware or software.

text: Mistakes made by people with installation and operation responsibilities of the system / system’s

text: Errors and unintentional System/security administrator

text: security. A system/security administrator commits an operating error, input error or utilisation error

text: failures errors

text: on hardware or software.

text: Errors and unintentional

text: Monitoring errors (logs) Lack of records, incomplete records, incorrectly dated records, incorrectly attributed records, etc.

text: failures

text: Entry of erroneous configuration data. Almost all assets depend on their configuration, and this

text: Errors and unintentional

text: Configuration errors depends on the diligence of the administrator (access privileges, activity flows, activity records,

text: failures

text: routing, etc.).

text: 37 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Errors and unintentional When it is not clear who must do exactly what and when, including taking measures on the assets or

text: Organisational deficiencies

text: failures reporting to the management hierarchy.

text: Errors and unintentional

text: Malware diffusion Unintentional propagation of viruses, spyware, worms, Trojans, logic bombs, etc.

text: failures

text: The sending of information via a system or network using, accidentally, an incorrect route that sends

text: Errors and unintentional

text: (Re)routing errors the information to the wrong destination. These could be messages sent to/by people, processes or

text: failures

text: both.

text: Errors and unintentional

text: Sequence errors The accidental alteration of the order of the messages sent.

text: failures Errors and unintentional Accidental alteration of the

text: The accidental alteration of the information.

text: failures information Errors and unintentional

text: Destruction of information The accidental loss of the information.

text: failures Errors and unintentional

text: Information leaks Disclosure due to indiscretion (verbal indiscretion, electronic media, hard copies, etc.).

text: failures

text: Errors and unintentional Defects in the code that cause a defective operation without intention on the part of the user but with

text: Software vulnerabilities

text: failures consequences to the data confidentiality, integrity, availability or to its capacity to operate.

text: Errors and unintentional Defects in software Defects in the procedures or controls for updating the code that allow programmes with known

text: failures maintenance / updating defects that have been repaired by the manufacturer to continue to be used.

text: Errors and unintentional Defects in hardware Defects in the procedures or controls for updating equipment that allow it to operate under normal

text: failures maintenance / updating circumstances. Lack of expertise in the system making retrofitting and upgrading impossible.

text: Errors and unintentional System failure due to The lack of sufficient resources causes the system failure when the workload is excessive. Overload

text: failures exhaustion of resources of storage space (e.g. backup space, mailbox storage, work area, etc.).

text: Errors and unintentional Retrieval of recycled or The loss of equipment directly causes the lack of means to provide services, that is, their service’s

text: failures discarded media unavailability.

text: Errors and unintentional Accidental absence from the work post (illness, disturbances in public order, bacteriological warfare,

text: Breach of personnel availability

text: failures etc.). Absence of qualified or authorised personnel held up for reasons beyond their control.

text: Manipulation of activity records

text: Wilful attacks Manipulation of activity records to remove any evidence or traces.

text: (log) Manipulation of the

text: Wilful attacks The entry of erroneous configuration data.

text: configuration files

text: When attackers manage to appear as authorised users, they enjoy the users’ privileges for their own

text: Wilful attacks Masquerading of identity

text: purposes.

text: When users abuse their privilege level to carry out tasks that are not their responsibility, there are

text: Wilful attacks Abuse of access privileges

text: problems.

text: The use of system resources for unplanned purposes, typically of personal interest (games,

text: Wilful attacks Misuse personal searches on the internet, personal databases, personal programmes, storage of personal

text: data, etc.).

text: Wilful attacks Malware diffusion Intentional propagation of viruses, spyware, worms, Trojans, logic bombs, etc.

text: The sending of information via a system or network using, deliberately, an incorrect route that sent

text: Wilful attacks (Re)routing of messages

text: the information to the wrong destination.

text: The alteration of the order of the messages sent. The idea is that the new order changes the

text: Wilful attacks Sequence alteration

text: meaning of the group of messages, prejudicing the integrity of the affected data.

text: An attacker manages to access the system’s resources without authorisation for doing so, typically

text: Wilful attacks Unauthorised access

text: taking advantage of a failure in the identification and authorisation system.

text: 38 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Without needing to analyse the contents of communications, the attacker can reach conclusions

text: Wilful attacks Traffic analysis

text: based on the analysis of the origin, destination, volume and frequency of the exchanges.

text: An entity denies being involved in an exchange with a third party or carrying out an operation. The

text: Wilful attacks Repudiation (denial of actions)

text: later rejection of actions or undertakings acquired in the past.

text: Wilful attacks Eavesdropping Attackers have access to information that is not theirs, without the information itself being altered.

text: Deliberate alteration of

text: Wilful attacks Intentional alteration of the information to obtain a benefit or cause damage.

text: information

text: Wilful attacks Destruction of information The intentional deletion of information to obtain a benefit or cause damage.

text: Wilful attacks Disclosure of information Intentional disclosure of information.

text: The intentional alteration of the operation of a programme to obtain an indirect benefit when an

text: Wilful attacks Tampering with software

text: authorised person uses it.

text: The intentional alteration of the operation of hardware to obtain an indirect benefit when an

text: Wilful attacks Tampering with hardware

text: authorised person uses it.

text: Wilful attacks Denial of services The lack of sufficient resources causes the system failure when the workload is too high.

text: Wilful attacks Theft of media or documents Theft of media directly causes a lack of resources to provide the services, that is, non-availability.

text: Theft of equipment directly causes a lack of resources to provide the services, that is, non-

text: Wilful attacks Theft of equipment

text: availability.

text: Wilful attacks Destructive attack Vandalism, terrorism, military action, etc.

text: Wilful attacks Enemy overrun When the premises have been invaded and control is lost over the means of work.

text: Deliberate absence from the work post (strikes, labour absenteeism, unjustified absences, the

text: Wilful attacks Staff shortage

text: blocking of accesses, etc.).

text: Wilful attacks Extortion Pressure with threats, on people, to oblige them to act in a certain way.

text: Taking advantage of the good will of some people to make them carry out activities of interest to a

text: Wilful attacks Social engineering

text: third party.

text: Service-related threats (cloud

text: The loss of governance and control could have a potentially severe impact on the organisation’s

text: services, services provided by Loss of governance

text: strategy and therefore on the capacity to meet its mission and goals.

text: third parties) Service-related threats (cloud

text: Relying strongly on the services of one provider can lead to severe difficulties in changing the

text: services, services provided by Lock-in

text: provider.

text: Failure of mechanisms separating storage, memory, routing and even reputation between different

text: services, services provided by Isolation failure

text: tenants of the shared infrastructure.

text: third parties) Service-related threats (cloud Management interface

text: services, services provided by A management interface is compromised.

text: compromise third parties)

text: Service-related threats (cloud Deleting data from storage does not in fact mean that the data is permanently removed from the

text: Insecure or ineffective deletion

text: services, services provided by storage. The data could be accessed at a later time by another customer of an outsourcing

text: of data

text: third parties) partner/provider.

text: 39 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Service-related threats (cloud

text: A compromise of the service engine will give an attacker access to the data of all customers,

text: services, services provided by Compromise of service engine

text: resulting in a potential complete loss of data or denial of service.

text: Law enforcement authorities may ask operators of IT infrastructures to provide information

text: services, services provided by Subpoena and e-discovery

text: pertaining to criminal cases, or information may have to be provided during civil lawsuits.

text: third parties)

text: Service-related threats (cloud When data is stored or processed in a data centre located in a country other than the customer

text: Risk from changes of

text: services, services provided by country, there are numerous ways in which the change in jurisdiction could affect the security of the

text: jurisdiction

text: third parties) information.

text: Service-related threats (cloud Data protection law is based on the premise that it is always clear where personal data is located,

text: services, services provided by Data protection risks who processes it and who is responsible for data processing. Distributed environments appear to

text: third parties) conflict with this evidence.

text: Service-related threats (cloud Customers need to be informed about what data might be used by the providers for secondary

text: User privacy and secondary

text: services, services provided by purposes. This includes data that can be mined directly from user data by providers or indirectly

text: usage of data

text: third parties) based on user behaviour (clicks, etc.).

text: Service-related threats (cloud In the event of a security incident, applications and services hosted at a provider are difficult to

text: Incidence analysis and forensic

text: services, services provided by investigate, as logging may be distributed across multiple hosts and data centres, in various

text: support

text: third parties) countries.

text: Service-related threats (cloud

text: Provisioning, management, orchestration and monitoring are all performed through APIs. The

text: services, services provided by Insecure interfaces and APIs

text: security and availability of general services is dependent on the security of these interfaces.

text: third parties)

text: 40 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: D Annex IV – Toolbox impact scale

text: The EU RM toolbox impact scale comprises five levels, which are: (i) very high; (ii) high; (iii) moderate; (iv) low; and (v) very low. The impact that corresponds to each of these levels is detailed below to help stakeholders to identify corresponding levels that best fit to their environment. • Very high: disastrous. o A threat event leads to disastrous business impacts. o A threat event leads to financial loss that is bigger than 5 % of the organisation’s annual turnover/budget. o Information leaks might threaten the organisation’s survival. o A threat event leads to corruption that is irrecoverable or causes permanent downtime. o Unavailability that takes extreme efforts to regain, or that is permanent. o Negative impact on the reputation of the organisation or its employees with global media coverage. o A threat event leads to discontinuation of all organisational services. o The organisation might receive a harsh penalty, which might bring some lethal costs close to being insurmountable. o Significant repercussions that are almost irreversible and cannot be surpassed (e.g. death, working impossibility). • High: critical. o A threat event leads to critical business impacts. o A threat event leads to financial loss that ranges from 2 % to 5 % of the organisation’s annual turnover/budget. o Information leaks severely undermine the interests of an organisation. o A threat event leads to corruption that imposes a substantial burden on the stakeholders. o Intense unavailability that causes significant inconvenience for stakeholders. o Significant decline in the organisation’s reputation with repeated media criticism. o A threat event leads to complete departmental disruption. Indictment against the business. o A threat event costs the organisation a considerable amount of money in fees. o Significant outcomes that might be surpassed, but with considerable challenges (e.g. bank ban). • Moderate: average. o A threat event leads to average business impacts. o A threat event leads to financial loss that ranges from 0.05 % to 2 % of the organisation’s annual turnover/budget. o Information leaks undermine the interests of the organisation. o A threat event leads to corruption that causes difficulty for the affected parties, nevertheless, the recovery is simple. o Limited availability causes difficulty for the concerned stakeholders. o A threat event leads to temporary damage to the reputation of the organisation with occasional media criticism. o A threat event leads to isolated events with minimal consumer/citizen effect. o A threat event leads to possible penalties for the organisation and might introduce non-marginal charges. 41 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: o Significant difficulty that might be compounded by a few complications (e.g. denial of access to commercial delivery). • Low: marginal. o A threat event leads to marginal business impacts. o A threat event leads to financial loss that ranges from 0.01 % to 0.05 % of the organisation’s annual turnover/budget. o Leaks of information are detrimental to the overall interests of the organisation. o Eradicating the corruption would not have any negative repercussions. o Lack of availability that causes inconvenience but does not seriously compromise the interests of the stakeholders. o A threat event leads to infrequent media criticism. o A threat event leads to minor occurrences that had no effect on their service users. o A threat event introduces some supplemental charges. A very low chance of any sentences, or perhaps a very minor possibility of one. o A little setback that can be easily overcome (e.g. time waste). • Very low: negligible. o A threat event leads to negligible business impacts. o A threat event leads to financial loss that is less than or equal to 0.01 % of the organisation’s annual turnover/budget. 42 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: E Annex V – Toolbox risk scale

text: The EU RM toolbox risk scale comprises five levels, which are: (i) very high; (ii) high; (iii) moderate; (iv) low; and (v) very low. These levels are affected by the levels of impact and probability, as demonstrated by the risk matrix shown in Figure 2 and detailed below. • Very high. o A threat event leading to disastrous (very high impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to disastrous (very high impact) business impacts is predicted as very likely (high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to critical (high impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. • High. o A threat event leading to disastrous (very high impact) business impacts is predicted as unlikely (low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to disastrous (very high impact) business impacts is predicted to potentially (moderate probability) materialise. o A threat event leading to critical (high impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to critical (high impact) business impacts is predicted as very likely (very high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to average (moderate impact) business impacts is predicted as very likely (high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to average (moderate impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to marginal (low impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. • Moderate. o A threat event leading to disastrous (very high impact) business impacts is predicted as very unlikely (very low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to critical (high impact) business impacts is predicted as unlikely (low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to average (moderate impact) business impacts is predicted as unlikely (low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to average (moderate impact) business impacts is predicted to potentially (moderate probability) materialise. o A threat event leading to marginal (low impact) business impacts is predicted to potentially (moderate probability) materialise. o A threat event leading to marginal (low impact) business impacts is predicted as very likely (high probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to negligible (very low impact) business impacts is predicted as almost certain (very high probability) to materialise. • Low. o A threat event leading to critical (high impact) business impacts is predicted as very unlikely (very low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to average (moderate impact) business impact is predicted as very unlikely (very low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to marginal (low impact) business impact is predicted as unlikely (low probability) to materialise. 43 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: o A threat event leading to negligible (very low impact) business impacts is predicted to potentially (moderate probability) materialise. o A threat event leading to negligible (very low impact) business impacts is predicted as very likely (high probability) to materialise. • Very low. o A threat event leading to marginal (low impact) business impacts is predicted as very unlikely (very low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to negligible (very low impact) business impacts is predicted as very unlikely (very low probability) to materialise. o A threat event leading to negligible (very low impact) business impacts is predicted as unlikely (low probability) to materialise. 44 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: F ANNEX VI – Risk calculation interoperability samples

text: This annex presents two experiments that prove the interoperability among various methodologies and the proposed toolbox. We have to note that the toolbox seamlessly works with ITSRM , Monarc, EBIOS (expression of needs and identification of security objectives) and Magerit. The toolbox is equipped with dropdown lists that contain, in a numerical approach, the impact and probability level of the aforementioned methodologies. ITSRM has been harmonised in 5 levels instead of 10 based on the approach that is proposed in the corresponding guideline. EBIOS and Magerit are methodologies that support the five cybersecurity risk scaling. While Monarc supports a three cybersecurity risk scaling (high, medium and low). To prove the aforementioned feature of interoperability, we performed two experiments with Monarc and Magerit. Experiment 1. We assume that the final user is an organisation that works within the energy sector and performs risk per threat following the Monarc method. At this point, we will calculate the risk of this organisation against the threat of the denial of service. On the one hand, the impact coming from Monarc depends on parameters including the impact of threat in confidentiality, integrity, availability, reputation, operational, legal, financial and personal. The overall impact scores 4 out of 4. On the other hand, the probability of a threat depending on existing system vulnerabilities and likelihood of occurrence of the corresponding threat scores 4 out of 4. The overall risk due to the Monarc approach is considered as high. However, based on the toolbox approach, the risk of the corresponding organisation is considered as very high. Experiment 2. We assume that the final user is an organisation that works within the healthcare sector and performs risk per threat following the Magerit method. At this point, we will calculate the risk of this organisation against the threat of the denial of service. On the one hand, the impact coming from Magerit depends on parameters that are directly related to economical loss. The overall impact scores 4 out of 5 (less than 1 000 000 000.00 monetary units). On the other hand, the frequency of occurrence of a threat scores 3 out of 5 (less than a year). The overall risk due to the Monarc approach is considered as high. Following this experiment, the toolbox agrees with the initial result that entitled it as high risk. 45 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: G Annex VII – Toolbox libraries

text: This annex provides the list of toolbox libraries. • EU RM Toolbox Library 01 – Terms Mappings v1.0 • EU RM Toolbox Library 02 – Assets Mappings v1.0 • EU RM Toolbox Library 03 – Threats Mappings v1.0 • EU RM Toolbox Library 04 – Risk-Impact Levels Mappings v1.0 46 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: H Annex VIII – Use case example

text: This annex provides an example of a use case that has been developed in the context of a competent authority wishing to have an overview of the risk levels faced by an organisation in a specific sector. Scenario description A NIS competent authority wants to identify risk exposures at the national level against an emerged threat that is related to the spread of a ransomware that targets mainly distribution system operators (DSOs) in the energy sector. More specifically, the attack aims to encrypt the databases of distributed energy resources management systems, thus disabling load and production forecasting and the grid network operations at distribution level (see Figure 6). The attackers initially infect a DSO’s network with malicious loaders through updates of several backup server suites deployed in DSOs’ networks. Figure 3: Logical architecture of the targeted DSO network Indicative assets in scope This section lists indicative assets that are involved in the incident scenario. The typical relationship of the involved tangible assets is depicted in Figure 7, although the DSOs’ architectures are expected to vary. In parentheses is the type of assets according to the toolbox’s asset classification: data, function, software, hardware, IT services, personnel, location. Use case’s indicative involved assets: 47 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Distribution management system (DMS) data (data) / DMS backup data (data) / load forecast (function) / production forecast (function) / backup server (software) / backup server (hardware) / networking devices (IT services) / DMS server (software/hardware). Figure 4: Assets involved in the incident scenario mapped to the smart grid architecture model Attack path The attack path for the ransomware incident scenario comprises the following steps. 1. Attack path step 1. An initial malware (loader) enters the network through the software update channel of the backup software (located at the organisation’s operation network). 2. Attack path step 2. The loader executes a PowerShell script to create a scheduled task at the backup server and gain persistence to the target network. 3. Attack path step 3. The scheduled task is executed daily and creates a commandand-control channel between the adversary-controlled remote server and the victim’s system. 4. Attack path step 4. The malware gains access to an admin’s valid local accounts to use the admin’s privileges in lateral movement. 5. Attack path step 5. The malware conducts remote system discovery for lateral movement. 6. Attack path step 6. Ransomware is uploaded through the command-and-control channel to DMS. 7. Attack path step 7. The attacker obtains access to a backup server / destroys backups. 48 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 8. Attack path step 8. The ransomware encrypts the database of the distribution system. The above steps are depicted in Figure 8. Figure 5: Attack path steps Attack scenarios In this section, we describe the attack scenarios per attack step, each comprising of <assets, threats, impact>. The list of involved assets includes targeted assets, such as the DMS data, and assets that are part of the attack surface or the attack vector. Moreover, the list of threats is indicative, and additional threats can also be examined. 49 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: Table 5: Indicative attack scenarios Impact / affected Attack scenario Indicative MITRE security Indicative involved Attack steps (ID v threat ATT&CK® dimension assets (type) description) scenarios framework (confidentiality, integrity, availability)

text: DMS backup data (data) / 1. Initial 1.1. Malware load forecast (service) / Initial access malware gains foothold Unintentional production forecast (T1195 supply (loader) through software malware C-I-A (service) / backup server chain enters the updates (supply diffusion (software) / backup server compromise) network chain attack) (hardware)

text: DMS backup data (data) / Execution (T1204 2.1. PowerShell load forecast (service) / Manipulation 2. Attacker user execution, script is executed production forecast of the gains T1059 command C-I-A and scheduled (service) / backup server configuration persistence and scripting task is created operating system files interpreter) (software)

text: Command and 3.1. The C2 DMS backup data (data) / 3. Command- Manipulation control (T1071 channel enables backup server operating and-control of the application layer communication system (software) / C-I-A channel is configuration protocol, T1219 with adversary- networking devices (IT established files remote access controlled servers services) software)

text: 4.1. Adversaries Privilege DMS data (data) / backup 4. Privilege use stolen valid Masquerading escalation server operating system C-I escalation accounts during of identity (T1078 valid (software) lateral movement accounts)

text: 5.1. Adversaries DMS data (data) / load

text: attempt to forecast (service) / Unauthorised Discovery (T1083

text: 5. Discovery discover details of production forecast access file and directory C

text: the DMS (service) / networking (network) discovery)

text: architecture devices (IT services)

text: Lateral

text: movement

text: DMS data (data) / load (T1210

text: 6.1. Ransomware forecast (service) / Intentional exploitation of

text: 6. Lateral

text: uploaded to the production forecast malware remote services), C-I-A

text: movement

text: DMS database (service) / DMS server diffusion command and

text: (software/hardware) control (T1105

text: ingress tool

text: transfer)

text: 7.1. Adversary

text: 7. Backups deletes all DMS backup data (data) / Destruction of Impact (T1485 A are deleted backups at the backup server information data destruction)

text: backup server

text: 50 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 8.1. The DMS DMS data (data) / load data is encrypted forecast (service) / Impact (T565 8. Data is Unauthorised using the production forecast data C-I-A encrypted access uploaded (service) / DMS server manipulation) ransomware (software)

text: Deliverables The participants are expected to provide the results of the risk assessment for all the risk scenarios that they will run in the form of a list. Moreover, they have to name the method and/or tool they have used for the risk assessment. The provided information will allow the toolbox to be used to normalise risk values and compare results. Important NB: To avoid the unintentional disclosure of sensitive information regarding the participants’ environments, the participants are kindly asked to provide biased information that does not necessarily reflect the actual status, as this is not the aim of this task. 51 Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox

text: | FEBRUARY 2023

text: 6. Bibliography/references

text: ENISA (2021) Interoperable EU Risk Management Framework [Online]. Available at: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/interoperable-eu-risk-management-framework International Standardization Organisation, 2018. ISO/IEC 27005:2018 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management European Commission Directorate-General for Communication, Security standards applying to all European Commission information systems. EU ITSRM, IT SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY V1.2. [Online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/security-standards-applying-all-european-commissioninformation-systems_en International Standardization Organisation, 2018. ISO/IEC 27000:2018, Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Overview and vocabulary, s.l.: International Standardisation Organisation. ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993 Information Technology – Vocabulary – Part 1: Fundamental terms. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). [Online]. Available: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=7229 Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative, 2012. Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments. [Online]. Available at: https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-30/rev-1/final Joint Task Force, 2018. Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organisations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy. [Online]. Available at: https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-37/rev-2/final Standard Computer Dictionary IEEE, A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. IEEE, New York, NY, 1990 https://www.standardsuniversity.org/article/standards-glossary/#I Lars Fischer, Mathias Uslar (OFFIS), Doug Morrill (Navigant), Michael Döring, Edwin Haesen (Ecofys), 2018. Study on the Evaluation of Risks of Cyber-Incidents and on Costs of Preventing Cyber-Incidents in the Energy Sector. [Online]. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/studyevaluation-risks-cyber-incidents-and-costs-preventing-cyber-incidents-energy-sector_en Lockheed Martin, 2021. The Cyber Kill Chain. [Online]. Available at: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/cyber/cyber-kill-chain.html MITRE, 2015-2021. MITRE ATT&CK. [Online]. Available at: https://attack.mitre.org/ 52 TP -0 4-22 -275 -EN -C About ENISA The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) is the EU’s agency dedicated to achieving a high common level of cybersecurity across Europe. Established in 2004 and strengthened by the EU Cybersecurity Act, ENISA contributes to EU cyber policy, enhances the trustworthiness of ICT products, services and processes with cybersecurity certification schemes, cooperates with Member States and EU bodies and helps Europe prepare for the cyber challenges of tomorrow. Through knowledge sharing, capacity building and awareness raising, the agency works together with its key stakeholders to strengthen trust in the connected economy, to boost resilience of the EU’s infrastructure and, ultimately, to keep Europe’s society and citizens digitally secure. More information about ENISA and its work can be found here: www.enisa.europa.eu. ISBN 978-92-9204-609-5