+Artikel 98 Reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder for autentifikation og kommunikation
---+Artikel 98 1.
---+Artikel 98 2.
---+Artikel 98 3.
---+Artikel 98 4.
---+Artikel 98 5.

Artikel 98 Reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder for autentifikation og kommunikation

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 98 1.

EBA udarbejder i tæt samarbejde med ECB efter høring af alle relevante interessenter, herunder interessenter på betalingstjenestemarkedet, og under hensyntagen til alle involverede interesser udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder til betalingstjenesteudbydere som fastsat i dette direktivs artikel 1, stk. 1, i overensstemmelse med artikel 10 i forordning (EU) nr. 1093/2010 vedrørende:

a) 

krav til stærk kundeautentifikation, jf. artikel 97, stk. 1 og 2

b) 

undtagelser fra anvendelsen af artikel 97, stk. 1, 2 og 3, på grundlag af de i nærværende artikels stk. 3 fastsatte kriterier

c) 

krav, som sikkerhedsforanstaltninger skal opfylde, i overensstemmelse med artikel 97, stk. 3, for at beskytte fortroligheden og integriteten af betalingstjenestebrugeres personaliserede sikkerhedsoplysninger, og

d) 

krav til fælles og sikre åbne standarder for kommunikation mellem kontoførende betalingstjenesteudbydere, betalingsinitieringstjenesteudbydere, kontooplysningstjenesteudbydere, betalere, betalingsmodtagere og andre betalingstjenesteudbydere med henblik på identifikation, autentifikation, underretning og udveksling af oplysninger samt iværksættelse af sikkerhedsforanstaltninger.
Artikel 98 2.

De i stk. 1 omhandlede udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder udarbejdes af EBA med henblik på at:

a) 

sikre en passende grad af sikkerhed for betalingstjenestebrugere og betalingstjenesteudbydere ved at indføre effektive og risikobaserede krav

b) 

sikre betalingstjenestebrugeres midler og personoplysninger

c) 

sikre og opretholde fair konkurrence mellem alle betalingstjenesteudbydere

d) 

sikre teknologi- og forretningsmodelneutralitet

e) 

gøre det muligt at udvikle brugervenlige, tilgængelige og innovative betalingsmidler.
Artikel 98 3.

De i stk. 1, litra b), omhandlede undtagelser skal bygge på følgende kriterier:

a) 

risikoniveauet for den tjeneste, der udbydes

b) 

transaktionens beløb, tilbagevendende karakter eller begge dele

c) 

den betalingskanal, der anvendes til at gennemføre transaktionen.
Artikel 98 4.
EBA forelægger de i stk. 1 omhandlede udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder for Kommissionen senest den 13. januar 2017.

Kommissionen tillægges beføjelse til at vedtage de reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder i overensstemmelse med artikel 10-14 i forordning (EU) nr. 1093/2010.
Artikel 98 5.
EBA gennemgår og ajourfører om nødvendigt regelmæssigt de reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder i overensstemmelse med artikel 10 i forordning (EU) nr. 1093/2010 for bl.a. at tage højde for innovation og den teknologiske udvikling og for bestemmelserne i kapitel II i forordning (EU) 2022/2554.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF Secure Practices Alignment Justification

Description

Mechanisms exist to align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Informal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.

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

∙ Formal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.
∙ Gap analysis documentation
∙ Written justification for framework choices.

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Documented gap analysis and justification
∙ GRC platform alignment reports (e.g., SCFConnect)

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Regulatory mapping evidence packages
∙ GRC platform with framework comparison reporting

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ External auditor validation
∙ Board-level reporting on framework compliance
∙ GRC platform with automated framework mapping

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.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).

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 align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

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.