+Artikel 24 Generelle krav til gennemførelsen af test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed
---+Artikel 24 1
---+Artikel 24 2
---+Artikel 24 3
---+Artikel 24 4
---+Artikel 24 5
---+Artikel 24 6

Artikel 24 Generelle krav til gennemførelsen af test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 24 1

1.   Med henblik på at vurdere beredskabet i forhold til håndtering af IKT-relaterede hændelser, identificere svagheder, mangler og huller i den digitale operationelle modstandsdygtighed og straks træffe korrigerende foranstaltninger udarbejder, opretholder og gennemgår de finansielle enheder, der ikke er mikrovirksomheder, under hensyntagen til kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, et forsvarligt og omfattende program for test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed som en integrerende del af den i artikel 6 omhandlede ramme for IKT-risikostyring.
Artikel 24 2

2.   Programmet for test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed skal omfatte en række vurderinger, test, metodologier, fremgangsmåder og værktøjer, der skal anvendes i overensstemmelse med artikel 25 og 26.
Artikel 24 3

3.   Når de finansielle enheder, der ikke er mikrovirksomheder, gennemfører det i denne artikels stk. 1 omhandlede program for test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed, følger de en risikobaseret tilgang, idet de tager hensyn til kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, under behørig hensyntagen til et IKT-risikomiljø i udvikling, eventuelle specifikke risici, som den berørte finansielle enhed udsættes for eller kan blive udsat for, informationsaktivernes og de leverede tjenesters kritiske betydning samt alle andre faktorer, som den finansielle enhed finder relevante.
Artikel 24 4

4.   De finansielle enheder, der ikke er mikrovirksomheder, sikrer, at test gennemføres af uafhængige parter, hvad enten de er interne eller eksterne. Hvis en intern tester gennemfører test, skal de finansielle enheder afsætte tilstrækkelige ressourcer og sikre, at interessekonflikter undgås under testens udformnings- og gennemførelsesfaser.
Artikel 24 5

5.   De finansielle enheder, der ikke er mikrovirksomheder, fastlægger procedurer og politikker med henblik på at prioritere, klassificere og afhjælpe alle problemer, der identificeres i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af test, og fastlægger interne valideringsmetoder for at sikre, at alle konstaterede svagheder, mangler eller huller afhjælpes fuldt ud.
Artikel 24 6

6.   De finansielle enheder, der ikke er mikrovirksomheder, sikrer, at der gennemføres passende test af alle IKT-systemer og -applikationer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, mindst én gang om året.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events

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

∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.