+Third-Party Contract Requirements
---+Contract Flow-Down Requirements
---+Provider Contingency Plan

Third-Party Contract Requirements

Description

Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

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.
▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative.
▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data.

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 require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD.

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.

1. Oversigt

Contract Flow-Down Requirements

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements are included in contracts that flow-down to applicable subcontractors and suppliers.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

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.
▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative.
▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data.

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 ensure applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements are included in contracts that flow-down to applicable sub-contractors and suppliers.

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.
Provider Contingency Plan

Description

Mechanisms exist to contractually-require external service providers to have contingency plans that meet organizational contingency requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR 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 contractually-require external service providers to have contingency plans that meet organizational contingency requirements.

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.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer
EULAW Artikel 11 Data- og systemsikkerhed
-
EULAW Artikel 13 Styring af netsikkerhed

Artikel 13

Styring af netsikkerhed

Som led i de sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, der garanterer netsikkerheden mod indtrængen og datamisbrug, udvikler, dokumenterer og gennemfører finansielle enheder politikker, procedurer, protokoller og værktøjer for styring af netsikkerhed, herunder alle følgende:

a) 

adskillelse og segmentering af IKT-systemer og -netværk under hensyntagen til:

i) 

hvor kritisk eller vigtig den funktion, som disse IKT-systemer og -netværk understøtter, er

ii) 

den klassificering, der er fastlagt i overensstemmelse med artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554

iii) 

den samlede risikoprofil for IKT-aktiver, der anvender disse IKT-systemer og -netværk

b) 

dokumentation for alle den finansielle enheds netværksforbindelser og datastrømme

c) 

anvendelse af et særskilt og dertil indrettet netværk til administration af IKT-aktiver

d) 

identifikation og gennemførelse af netadgangskontroller, som skal forebygge og detektere forbindelser til den finansielle enheds netværk ved hjælp af en uautoriseret enhed eller et uautoriseret system eller ethvert endpoint, der ikke opfylder den finansielle enheds sikkerhedskrav

e) 

kryptering af netværksforbindelser, der passerer gennem virksomhedsnetværk, offentlige netværk, indenlandske netværk, tredjeparters netværk og trådløse net, til de anvendte kommunikationsprotokoller, idet der tages hensyn til resultaterne af den godkendte dataklassificering, resultaterne af IKT-risikovurderingen og krypteringen af de netforbindelser, der er omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 2

f) 

udformningen af netværk i overensstemmelse med de krav til IKT-sikkerhed, der er fastsat af den finansielle enhed, idet der tages hensyn til førende praksis for at sikre fortroligheden, integriteten og tilgængeligheden af netværket

g) 

sikring af netværkstrafikken mellem de interne netværk og internettet og andre eksterne forbindelser

h) 

identifikation af roller og ansvarsområder og trin i forbindelse med specifikation, gennemførelse, godkendelse, ændring og revision af firewallregler og forbindelsesfiltre

i) 

udførelsen af gennemgange af netarkitekturen og af udformningen af netsikkerheden en gang om året, og regelmæssigt for mikrovirksomheder, med henblik på at identificere potentielle sårbarheder

j) 

foranstaltninger til midlertidig isolering, hvis det er nødvendigt, af delnet og af netværkskomponenter og -udstyr

k) 

gennemførelse af en sikker konfigurationsstandard for alle netværkskomponenter og hærdning af netværket og netværksudstyr i overensstemmelse med eventuelle leverandørinstruktioner, hvis det er relevant, standarder som defineret i artikel 2, nr. (1), i forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012, og førende praksis

l) 

procedurer, som skal begrænse, låse og afslutte system- og fjernsessioner efter en bestemt periode uden aktivitet

m) 

for aftaler om netværkstjenester:

i) 

identifikation og specificering af foranstaltninger vedrørende IKT og informationssikkerhed, serviceniveauer og styringskrav til alle netværkstjenester

ii) 

om disse tjenesteydelser leveres af en koncernintern udbyder af IKT-tjenester eller af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

Med henblik på litra h) foretager finansielle enheder regelmæssigt en gennemgang af firewallregler og forbindelsesfiltre i overensstemmelse med den klassificering, der er fastlagt i overensstemmelse med artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2022/2554, og den overordnede risikoprofil for de involverede IKT-systemer. For IKT-systemer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, efterprøver finansielle enheder mindst hver sjette måned, at de eksisterende firewallregler og forbindelsesfiltre er tilstrækkelige.
EULAW Artikel 28 Generelle principper
-
EULAW Artikel 29 Foreløbig vurdering af IKT-koncentrationsrisiko på enhedsniveau
-
EULAW Artikel 30 Centrale kontraktbestemmelser
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Generelle principper
-
EULAW Artikel 29 Foreløbig vurdering af IKT-koncentrationsrisiko på enhedsniveau
-
EULAW Artikel 30 Centrale kontraktbestemmelser
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Generelle principper
-
EULAW Artikel 29 Foreløbig vurdering af IKT-koncentrationsrisiko på enhedsniveau
-
EULAW Artikel 30 Centrale kontraktbestemmelser
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 28 1

1.   De finansielle enheder styrer IKT-tredjepartsrisiko som en integreret del af IKT-risiko inden for deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, og i overensstemmelse med følgende principper:

a)

Finansielle enheder, der har indgået kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester til drift af deres forretningsaktiviteter, har til enhver tid det fulde ansvar for at overholde og opfylde alle forpligtelser i henhold til denne forordning og gældende finansiel tjenesteydelsesret

b)

De finansielle enheders styring af IKT-tredjepartsrisiko skal gennemføres under hensyntagen til proportionalitetsprincippet, idet følgende tages i betragtning:

i)

karakteren, omfanget, kompleksiteten og betydningen af den IKT-relaterede afhængighed

ii)

de risici, der opstår som følge af kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der er indgået med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, under hensyntagen til den kritiske betydning eller vigtighed af den pågældende tjeneste, proces eller funktion og til de potentielle virkninger for driftsstabiliteten og tilgængeligheden af finansielle tjenesteydelser og aktiviteter på individuelt plan og koncernniveau.
EULAW Artikel 29 2

2.   Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, omfatter muligheden for, at en tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester giver IKT-tjenester, der understøtter en kritisk eller vigtig funktion, videre i underentreprise til andre tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, afvejer de finansielle enheder de fordele og risici, der kan opstå i forbindelse med en sådan underentreprise, navnlig hvis der er tale om en IKT-underleverandør med hjemsted i et tredjeland.

Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger vedrører IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, tager de finansielle enheder behørigt hensyn til de bestemmelser i insolvensretten, som finder anvendelse, hvis tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester går konkurs, samt eventuelle begrænsninger, der kan opstå i forbindelse med en hastende genopretning af den finansielle enheds data.

Hvis der er indgået kontraktlige ordninger for brug af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, med en tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester med hjemsted i et tredjeland, tager de finansielle enheder ud over til de i andet afsnit omhandlede forhold også hensyn til overholdelsen af Unionens databeskyttelsesregler og en effektiv håndhævelse af retten i det pågældende tredjeland.

Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, indeholder bestemmelser om underentreprise, vurderer de finansielle enheder, hvorvidt og hvordan potentielt lange eller komplekse underentreprisekæder kan påvirke deres evne til fuldt ud at overvåge de udliciterede funktioner og den kompetente myndigheds evne til i denne henseende at føre effektivt tilsyn med den finansielle enhed.
EULAW Artikel 30 1

1.   Rettigheder og forpligtelser for den finansielle enhed og for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester skal fordeles klart og fastlægges skriftligt. Den samlede kontrakt skal omfatte serviceniveauaftaler og dokumenteres i ét skriftligt dokument, som parterne skal have adgang til på papir, eller i et dokument i et andet varigt og tilgængeligt format, som kan downloades.
EULAW Artikel 30 2

2.   De kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester skal mindst omfatte følgende elementer:

a)

en klar og fuldstændig beskrivelse af alle funktioner og IKT-tjenester, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester skal levere, med angivelse af, om underentreprise af en IKT-tjeneste, der understøtter en kritisk eller vigtig funktion eller væsentlige dele heraf er tilladt, og, hvis det er tilfældet, de betingelser, der gælder for en sådan underentreprise

b)

de steder, navnlig de regioner eller lande, hvor de udliciterede funktioner og IKT-tjenester eller funktionerne og IKT-tjenesterne i underentreprise skal leveres, og hvor data skal behandles, herunder lagringsstedet, og kravet om, at tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester på forhånd skal underrette den finansielle enhed, hvis den har planer om at ændre disse steder

c)

bestemmelser om tilgængelighed, autenticitet, integritet og fortrolighed med hensyn til databeskyttelse, herunder personoplysninger

d)

bestemmelser om sikring af adgang, genopretning og tilbagesendelse i et lettilgængeligt format af personoplysninger og andre data end personoplysninger, der behandles af den finansielle enhed, i tilfælde af insolvens, afvikling eller afbrydelse af de forretningsaktiviteter, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester varetager, eller i tilfælde af opsigelse af de kontraktlige ordninger

e)

beskrivelser af serviceniveauet, herunder ajourføringer og revisioner heraf

f)

forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at yde bistand til den finansielle enhed uden yderligere omkostninger eller til en omkostning, der fastsættes på forhånd, hvis der opstår en IKT-hændelse, der vedrører den IKT-tjeneste, som leveres til den finansielle enhed

g)

forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at samarbejde fuldt ud med den finansielle enheds kompetente myndigheder og afviklingsmyndigheder, herunder personer, som de har udpeget

h)

opsigelsesrettigheder og dertil knyttet minimumsfrister for opsigelse af de kontraktlige ordninger i overensstemmelse med de kompetente myndigheders og afviklingsmyndighedernes forventninger

i)

betingelserne for deltagelse af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester i de finansielle enheders programmer til bevidstgørelse om IKT-sikkerhed og kurser i digital operationel modstandsdygtighed, jf. artikel 13, stk. 6.
EULAW Artikel 30 3

3.   De kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, skal ud over de elementer, der er omhandlet i stk. 2, mindst omfatte følgende:

a)

en fuldstændig beskrivelse af serviceniveauer, herunder ajourføringer og revisioner heraf, med præcise kvantitative og kvalitative præstationsmål inden for de aftalte serviceniveauer, således at den finansielle enhed kan foretage en effektiv overvågning af IKT-tjenester, og således at der uden unødigt ophold kan træffes passende afhjælpende foranstaltninger, når de aftalte serviceniveauer ikke overholdes

b)

opsigelsesfrister og indberetningsforpligtelser for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester over for den finansielle enhed, herunder underretning om enhver udvikling, som kan have væsentlig indvirkning på, hvorvidt tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester har evnen til effektivt at levere IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner i overensstemmelse med de aftalte serviceniveauer

c)

krav til tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester om at gennemføre og teste beredskabsplaner og indføre IKT-sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, -værktøjer og -politikker, som giver et passende niveau af sikkerhed for, at den finansielle enhed kan foretage levering af tjenester i overensstemmelse med dens reguleringsramme

d)

forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at deltage i og fuldt ud samarbejde om den finansielle enheds TLPT som omhandlet i artikel 26 og 27

e)

retten til løbende at overvåge det præstationsniveau, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester leverer, hvilket indebærer følgende:

i)

den finansielle enheds eller en udpeget tredjeparts og den kompetente myndigheds uindskrænkede ret til adgang, inspektion og revision og ret til at tage kopier af relevant dokumentation på stedet, hvis denne har afgørende betydning for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenesters operationer, hvis faktiske udøvelse ikke hindres eller begrænses af andre kontraktlige ordninger eller gennemførelsespolitikker

ii)

retten til at nå til enighed om alternative sikkerhedsniveauer, hvis andre kunders rettigheder påvirkes

iii)

forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til fuldt ud at samarbejde under de inspektioner og revisioner på stedet, som de kompetente myndigheder, den ledende tilsynsførende, den finansielle enhed eller en udpeget tredjepart udfører, og

iv)

forpligtelsen til at give nærmere oplysninger om omfanget af, de procedurer, som skal følges, og hyppigheden af sådanne inspektioner og revisioner

f)

exitstrategier, navnlig indførelse af en obligatorisk passende overgangsperiode:

i)

i løbet af hvilken tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester fortsat leverer de respektive funktioner eller IKT-tjenester med henblik på at mindske risikoen for forstyrrelser i den finansielle enhed eller sikre en effektiv afvikling eller omstrukturering heraf

ii)

som giver den finansielle enhed mulighed for at migrere til en anden tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester eller skifte til interne løsninger, der stemmer overens med den leverede tjenestes kompleksitet.

Uanset litra e) kan tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester og den finansielle enhed, som er en mikrovirksomhed, beslutte, at den finansielle enheds ret til adgang, inspektion og revision kan delegeres til en uafhængig tredjepart, som udpeges af tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester, og at den finansielle enhed til enhver tid kan anmode tredjeparten om oplysninger og garantier vedrørende de resultater, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester opnår.
EULAW Artikel 30 4

4.   Når finansielle enheder og tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester forhandler om kontraktlige ordninger, overvejer de anvendelsen af standardkontraktbestemmelser, som de offentlige myndigheder har udviklet til specifikke tjenester.

Linkede sager

Sagslinks
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks HR-06.02B
blocks PS-01.05B
blocks PS-06.04AC
blocks OPS-11.02B
blocks IAM-07.06B
blocks IAM-07.06AS
blocks IAM-07.01AC
blocks PI-02.01B
blocks PI-02.01AC
blocks PI-02.02AC
blocks DEV-02.01B
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks SSO-01.02AC
blocks SSO-03.02B
blocks SIM-04.02AC
blocks COM-02.01AC
blocks PSS-12.03B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks HR-06.02B
blocks PS-01.05B
blocks PS-06.04AC
blocks OPS-11.02B
blocks IAM-07.06B
blocks IAM-07.06AS
blocks IAM-07.01AC
blocks PI-02.01B
blocks PI-02.01AC
blocks PI-02.02AC
blocks DEV-02.01B
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks SSO-01.02AC
blocks SSO-03.02B
blocks SIM-04.02AC
blocks COM-02.01AC
blocks PSS-12.03B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks HR-06.02B
blocks PS-01.05B
blocks PS-06.04AC
blocks OPS-11.02B
blocks IAM-07.06B
blocks IAM-07.06AS
blocks IAM-07.01AC
blocks PI-02.01B
blocks PI-02.01AC
blocks PI-02.02AC
blocks DEV-02.01B
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks SSO-01.02AC
blocks SSO-03.02B
blocks SIM-04.02AC
blocks COM-02.01AC
blocks PSS-12.03B
is blocked by TPM-14 Third-Party Contract Requirements – Assessment Procedure
blocks SR-03(03) Sub-tier Flow Down
blocks 03.01.20 Use of External Systems
blocks 03.07.06 Maintenance Personnel
blocks 03.16.03 External System Services
blocks 03.17.02 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV.OC-02 Internal and external stakeholders are understood, and their needs and expectations regarding cybersecurity risk management are understood and …
blocks GV.OC-03 Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements regarding cybersecurity - including privacy and civil liberties obligations - are understood and …
blocks GV.SC-02 Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities for suppliers, customers, and partners are established, communicated, and coordinated internally and …
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-06 Planning and due diligence are performed to reduce risks before entering into formal supplier or other third-party relationships
blocks PO.1 Define Security Requirements for Software Development
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.