+Artikel 18 Klassificering af IKT-relaterede hændelser og cybertrusler
---+Artikel 18 1
---+Artikel 18 2
---+Artikel 18 3
---+Artikel 18 4
|
Artikel 18 Klassificering af IKT-relaterede hændelser og cybertrusler
-
1. Oversigt
| Titel |
Regulering |
|
Artikel 18 1
|
1. De finansielle enheder klassificerer IKT-relaterede hændelser og fastslår deres virkninger på grundlag af følgende kriterier:
|
a)
|
antallet og/eller relevansen af kunder eller finansielle modparter, som er berørt, og, hvis det er relevant, beløbet på eller antallet af de transaktioner, som er berørt af den IKT-relaterede hændelse, og hvorvidt den IKT-relaterede hændelse har haft indvirkning på omdømmet
|
|
b)
|
varigheden af den IKT-relaterede hændelse, herunder tjenestens nedetid
|
|
c)
|
den geografiske udbredelse med hensyn til de områder, der er berørt af den IKT-relaterede hændelse, navnlig hvis den berører mere end to medlemsstater
|
|
d)
|
de datatab, som den IKT-relaterede hændelse medfører med hensyn til tilgængelighed, autenticitet, integritet eller fortrolighed af data
|
|
e)
|
den kritiske betydning af de berørte tjenester, herunder den finansielle enheds transaktioner og operationer
|
|
f)
|
de økonomiske virkninger, navnlig direkte og indirekte omkostninger og tab, af den IKT-relaterede hændelse i både absolutte og relative tal.
|
|
|
Artikel 18 2
|
2. De finansielle enheder klassificerer cybertrusler som væsentlige på grundlag af de udsatte tjenesters kritiske betydning, herunder den finansielle enheds transaktioner og operationer, antallet og/eller relevansen af de kunder eller finansielle modparter, som rammes, og risikoområdernes geografiske udbredelse.
|
|
Artikel 18 3
|
3. ESA'erne udarbejder via Det Fælles Udvalg og i samråd med ECB og ENISA fælles udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder, som yderligere præciserer følgende:
|
a)
|
kriterierne i stk. 1, herunder væsentlighedstærskler til bestemmelse af større IKT-relaterede hændelser eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, større operationelle eller sikkerhedsmæssige betalingsrelaterede hændelser, som er omfattet af indberetningspligten i artikel 19, stk. 1
|
|
b)
|
de kriterier, som de kompetente myndigheder skal anvende med henblik på at vurdere relevansen af større IKT-relaterede hændelser eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, af større operationelle eller sikkerhedsmæssige betalingsrelaterede hændelser, for de relevante myndigheder i andre medlemsstater, og de nærmere oplysninger i rapporterne om større IKT-relaterede hændelser eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, større operationelle eller sikkerhedsmæssige betalingsrelaterede hændelser, som skal udveksles med andre kompetente myndigheder i henhold til artikel 19, stk. 6 og 7
|
|
c)
|
kriterierne i denne artikels stk. 2, herunder høje væsentlighedstærskler til bestemmelse af væsentlige cybertrusler.
|
|
|
Artikel 18 4
|
4. Når ESA'erne udarbejder de i denne artikels stk. 3 omhandlede fælles udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder, tager de hensyn til kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, samt de internationale standarder, den vejledning og de specifikationer, der er udarbejdet og offentliggjort af ENISA, herunder, hvor det er relevant, specifikationer for andre økonomiske sektorer. Med henblik på anvendelse af kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, tager ESA'erne behørigt hensyn til behovet for, at mikrovirksomheder og små og mellemstore virksomheder mobiliserer tilstrækkelige ressourcer og kapaciteter til at sikre, at IKT-relaterede hændelser håndteres hurtigt.
ESA'erne forelægger disse fælles udkast til reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder for Kommissionen senest den 17. januar 2024.
Kommissionen tillægges beføjelse til at supplere denne forordning ved at vedtage de i stk. 3 omhandlede reguleringsmæssige tekniske standarder i overensstemmelse med artikel 10-14 i forordning (EU) nr. 1093/2010, (EU) nr. 1094/2010 og (EU) nr. 1095/2010.
|
,
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede standarder
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede standarder
Standarder
| Kilde |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem 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
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem 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
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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.
|
|