+Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
---+Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans

Description

Mechanisms exist for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic business continuity plan
∙ Regular data backup

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

∙ Business continuity plan
∙ Tested backup and restore procedures

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

∙ Formal BCP/DRP program
∙ Regular backup testing
∙ Alternate processing capability

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

∙ Enterprise BCP/DRP program
∙ DR site
∙ Annual exercises
∙ RTO/RPO targets

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

∙ Enterprise BC/DR platform (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Enterprise)
∙ Dedicated DR site
∙ Automated failover
∙ Annual DR exercises

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.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.

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 for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

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.

1. Oversigt

Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav
Kilde	Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer

EULAW

Artikel 11 4

4. De finansielle enheder indfører, vedligeholder og foretager regelmæssig testning af passende planer for IKT-driftsstabilitet, navnlig med hensyn til kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, som outsources eller udliciteres gennem ordninger, der er indgået med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

EULAW

Artikel 11 6

6. Som led i den omfattende IKT-risikostyring skal de finansielle enheder

a)	teste deres planer for IKT-driftsstabilitet og planer for IKT-indsats og -genopretning i forbindelse med IKT-systemer, der understøtter alle funktioner, mindst én gang om året og i tilfælde af væsentlige ændringer af IKT-systemer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner

b)	teste de krisekommunikationsplaner, der er udarbejdet i henhold til artikel 14.

Med henblik på første afsnit, litra a), medtager finansielle enheder, som ikke er mikrovirksomheder, cyberangrebsscenarier og omstillingsscenarier mellem den primære IKT-infrastruktur og redundante kapacitet, sikkerhedskopier og de redundante faciliteter, der er nødvendige for at opfylde de i artikel 12 fastsatte forpligtelser, i testplanerne.

De finansielle enheder gennemgår regelmæssigt deres politik for IKT-driftsstabilitet og planer for IKT-indsats og -genopretning under hensyntagen til resultaterne af de test, der er gennemført i overensstemmelse med første afsnit, og henstillinger, der bygger på revisionskontrol eller tilsynsmæssige gennemgange.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

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.

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i politikken for IKT-driftsstabilitet
-

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i politikken for IKT-driftsstabilitet
-

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i politikken for IKT-driftsstabilitet
-

EULAW