+Contract Flow-Down Requirements
|
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.
1. Oversigt
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 29 Foreløbig vurdering af IKT-koncentrationsrisiko på enhedsniveau
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
|
|
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.
|
Linkede sager
Sagslinks
| Linktype |
Sag |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Protect |
|
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
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
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
|
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
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Products |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
DEV-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-02.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-07.01AS |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
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
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
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
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-14.1 Contract Flow-Down Requirements – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
SR-03(03) Sub-tier Flow Down |
|
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-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
|
GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service … |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|