+Článek 31 Určení kritických poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran
---+Článek 31 1
---+Článek 31 2
---+Článek 31 3
---+Článek 31 4
---+Článek 31 5
---+Článek 31 6
---+Článek 31 7
---+Článek 31 8
---+Článek 31 9
---+Článek 31 10
---+Článek 31 11
---+Článek 31 12
---+Článek 31 13
|
Článek 31 Určení kritických poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran
-
1. Přehled
| Název |
Regulace |
|
Článek 31 1
|
1. Evropské orgány dohledu prostřednictvím společného výboru a na základě doporučení fóra dohledu zřízeného podle čl. 32 odst. 1:
|
a)
|
určí poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří jsou kritičtí pro finanční subjekty, a to na základě posouzení, v jehož rámci zohlední kritéria podle odstavce 2;
|
|
b)
|
jmenují hlavním orgánem dohledu pro jednotlivé kritické poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran evropský orgán dohledu, který je v souladu s nařízeními (EU) č. 1093/2010, (EU) č. 1094/2010 nebo (EU) č. 1095/2010 odpovědný za finanční subjekty, jež mají dohromady největší podíl celkových aktiv z hodnoty celkových aktiv všech finančních subjektů, které využívají služeb příslušného kritického poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, jak je doloženo souhrnem jednotlivých účetních závěrek daných finančních subjektů.
|
|
|
Článek 31 2
|
2. Určení uvedené v odst. 1 písm. a) vychází ze všech následujících kritérií ve vztahu ke službám IKT poskytovaným poskytovatelem služeb IKT z řad třetích stran:
|
a)
|
systémový dopad na stabilitu, kontinuitu nebo kvalitu poskytování finančních služeb v případě, že bude příslušný poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran čelit rozsáhlému provoznímu výpadku poskytování svých služeb, přičemž se zohlední počet finančních subjektů a celková hodnota aktiv finančních subjektů, kterým příslušný poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran poskytuje své služby;
|
|
b)
|
systémová povaha či význam finančních subjektů, které spoléhají na příslušného poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, na základě posouzení podle následujících parametrů:
|
i)
|
počet globálních systémově významných institucí (G-SVI) nebo jiných systémově významných institucí (J-SVI), které spoléhají na daného poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran;
|
|
ii)
|
vzájemná závislost mezi G-SVI nebo J-SVI uvedenými v bodě i) a dalšími finančními subjekty, včetně situací, kdy G-SVI nebo J-SVI poskytují služby finanční infrastruktury dalším finančním subjektům;
|
|
|
c)
|
spoléhání finančních subjektů na služby dodávané příslušným poskytovatelem služeb IKT z řad třetích stran v souvislosti se zásadními nebo důležitými funkcemi finančních subjektů, které v konečném důsledku zahrnují zapojení stejného poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran bez ohledu na to, zda finanční subjekty využívají tyto služby přímo či nepřímo prostřednictvím subdodavatelských ujednání;
|
|
d)
|
míra nahraditelnosti poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran s přihlédnutím k těmto parametrům:
|
i)
|
nedostatek, i částečný, reálných alternativ vzhledem k omezenému počtu poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran aktivně působících na konkrétním trhu, podíl příslušného poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran na trhu nebo technická složitost či sofistikovanost služeb, též v souvislosti s jakoukoli chráněnou technologií, nebo specifické vlastnosti organizace či činnosti poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran;
|
|
ii)
|
potíže související s částečnou či úplnou migrací relevantních dat a pracovních úkolů při přechodu od příslušného poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran k jinému poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran buď kvůli vysokým finančním nákladům, času nebo jiným zdrojům, jež může proces migrace vyžadovat, nebo kvůli zvýšenému riziku v oblasti IKT či jiným operačním rizikům, jimž může být finanční subjekt během této migrace vystaven.
|
|
|
|
Článek 31 3
|
3. Je-li poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran součástí skupiny, kritéria uvedená v odstavci 2 se uplatňují na služby IKT poskytované danou skupinou jako celkem.
|
|
Článek 31 4
|
4. Kritičtí poskytovatelé služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří jsou součástí skupiny, určí jednu právnickou osobu jako koordinátora, aby bylo zajištěno odpovídající zastoupení a komunikace s hlavním orgánem dohledu.
|
|
Článek 31 5
|
5. Hlavní orgán dohledu oznámí poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran výsledek posouzení vedoucího k určení podle odst. 1 písm. a). Do šesti týdnů ode dne oznámení může poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran předložit hlavnímu orgánu dohledu odůvodněné prohlášení s veškerými relevantními informacemi pro účely posouzení. Hlavní orgán dohledu odůvodněné prohlášení zváží a může požádat o předložení doplňujících informací do 30 kalendářních dnů od jeho obdržení.
Poté, co byl některý poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran určen jako kritický, evropské orgány dohledu prostřednictvím společného výboru oznámí tuto skutečnost a počáteční datum, od kterého se na něj budou vztahovat činnosti v oblasti dohledu, tomuto poskytovateli. Toto počáteční datum nastane do jednoho měsíce po oznámení. O tom, že byl určen jako kritický, informuje daný poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran finanční subjekty, kterým poskytuje služby.
|
|
Článek 31 6
|
6. Komisi je svěřena pravomoc přijmout do 17. července 2024 akt v přenesené pravomoci v souladu s článkem 57, kterým toto nařízení doplní dalším upřesněním kritérií uvedených v odstavci 2 tohoto článku.
|
|
Článek 31 7
|
7. Určování podle odst. 1 písm. a) se neuskuteční, dokud Komise nepřijme akt v přenesené pravomoci podle odstavce 6.
|
|
Článek 31 8
|
8. Určování podle odst. 1 písm. a) se nevztahuje na:
|
i)
|
finanční subjekty poskytující služby IKT jiným finančním subjektům;
|
|
ii)
|
poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří podléhají rámci dohledu stanovenému pro účely podpory úkolů uvedených v čl. 127 odst. 2 Smlouvy o fungování EU;
|
|
iii)
|
poskytovatele služeb IKT v rámci skupiny;
|
|
iv)
|
poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří poskytují služby IKT pouze v jednom členském státě finančním subjektům, jež působí pouze v daném členském státě.
|
|
|
Článek 31 9
|
9. Evropské orgány dohledu prostřednictvím společného výboru vypracují, zveřejní a každoročně aktualizují seznam kritických poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran na úrovni Unie.
|
|
Článek 31 10
|
10. Příslušné orgány pro účely odst. 1 písm. a) každoročně a na agregovaném základě zašlou zprávy podle čl. 28 odst. 3 třetího pododstavce fóru dohledu vytvořenému v souladu s článkem 32. Fórum dohledu posoudí na základě informací obdržených od příslušných orgánů závislost finančních subjektů na třetích stranách poskytujících služby IKT.
|
|
Článek 31 11
|
11. Poskytovatelé služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří nejsou uvedeni na seznamu podle odstavce 9, mohou požádat o to, aby byli určeni jakožto kritičtí podle odst. 1 písm. a).
Poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran pro účely prvního pododstavce předloží odůvodněnou žádost EBA, ESMA nebo EIOPA, které prostřednictvím společného výboru rozhodnou, zda tohoto poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran určí jakožto kritického podle odst. 1 písm. a).
Rozhodnutí uvedené ve druhém pododstavci se přijme a oznámí dotčenému poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran do šesti měsíců od obdržení žádosti.
|
|
Článek 31 12
|
12. Finanční subjekty mohou využívat služby poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran usazeného ve třetí zemi, který byl určen za kritického podle odst. 1 písm. a), pouze pokud tento poskytovatel založí dceřiný podnik v Unii do 12 měsíců od daného určení.
|
|
Článek 31 13
|
13. Kritický poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran uvedený v odstavci 12 oznámí hlavnímu orgánu dohledu jakékoli změny ve struktuře vedení svého dceřiného podniku založeného v Unii.
|
,
1.1 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požadavky
1.3 Související standardy
2. Identifikované požadavky
Požadavky
| Zdroj |
Požadavek |
3. Související standardy
Standardy
| Zdroj |
Požadavek |
|
SCF
|
Contacts With Authorities
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG)
∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators
∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership
∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts
∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts
∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC)
∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships
∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA)
∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation
∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators)
∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable)
∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|