+Risk Management Policy

Risk Management Policy

Description

Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented risk management policy that:
(1) Conveys executive management's intent;
(2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors;
(3) Is reviewed at least annually; and
(4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Documented annual policy review with version control

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow
∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history
∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting

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

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management 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

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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).

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

Titel Standard

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav
Kilde Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer
Kilde Regulering
EULAW Artikel 6 1

1.   Finansielle enheder indfører en robust, omfattende og veldokumenteret ramme for IKT-risikostyring som en del af deres samlede risikostyringssystem, der sætter dem i stand til at håndtere IKT-risikoen hurtigt, effektivt og fyldestgørende, og som sikrer et højt niveau af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed.

EULAW Artikel 6 2

2.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal som minimum omfatte strategier, politikker, procedurer, IKT-protokoller og -værktøjer, som er nødvendige for på behørig vis og i tilstrækkelig grad at beskytte alle informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver, herunder computersoftware, -hardware og servere, samt for at beskytte alle relevante fysiske komponenter og infrastrukturer, såsom lokaler, datacentre og sensitive udpegede områder, for at sikre tilstrækkelig beskyttelse af alle informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver mod risici, herunder skade og uautoriseret adgang eller brug.

EULAW Artikel 6 3

3.   I overensstemmelse med deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring minimerer de finansielle enheder virkningerne af IKT-risiko ved at indføre passende strategier, politikker, procedurer, IKT-protokoller og -værktøjer. De forelægger fuldstændige og ajourførte oplysninger om IKT-risiko og om deres ramme for IKT-styring for de kompetente myndigheder på disses anmodning.

EULAW Artikel 6 4

4.   Finansielle enheder, som ikke er mikrovirksomheder, overdrager ansvaret for styring af og tilsyn med IKT-risikoen til en kontrolfunktion og sikrer, at denne kontrolfunktion har et passende uafhængighedsniveau, således at interessekonflikter undgås. Finansielle enheder sikrer en passende adskillelse og uafhængighed af IKT-risikostyringsfunktioner, kontrolfunktioner og interne revisionsfunktioner efter modellen med tre forsvarslinjer eller en intern model for risikostyring og kontrol.

EULAW Artikel 6 5

5.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal dokumenteres og gennemgås mindst én gang om året, eller regelmæssigt for så vidt angår mikrovirksomheder, samt når der forekommer større IKT-relaterede hændelser, og i henhold til tilsynsmæssige instrukser eller konklusioner, som er udledt af relevant test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed eller revisionsprocesser. Den skal forbedres løbende på grundlag af indhøstede gennemførelses- og overvågningserfaringer. Der skal forelægges en rapport om gennemgangen af rammen for IKT-risikostyring for den kompetente myndighed på dens anmodning.

EULAW Artikel 6 6

6.   Revisorer foretager regelmæssigt intern revision af rammen for IKT-risikostyring for andre finansielle enheder end mikrovirksomheder i overensstemmelse med de finansielle enheders revisionsplan. Disse revisorer skal besidde tilstrækkelig viden, faglig kompetence og ekspertise med hensyn til IKT-risici og være tilstrækkeligt uafhængige. Hyppigheden af IKT-revisioner og deres fokus skal stå i rimeligt forhold til den finansielle enheds IKT-risiko.

EULAW Artikel 6 7

7.   De finansielle enheder etablerer på baggrund af konklusioner fra den interne revisionsgennemgang en formel opfølgningsproces, herunder regler for rettidig efterprøvning og udbedring af kritiske resultater af IKT-revisioner.

EULAW Artikel 6 8

8.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal omfatte en strategi for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed, der fastsætter, hvordan rammen gennemføres. Med henblik herpå skal strategien for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed omfatte metoderne til håndtering af IKT-risiko og opfylde specifikke IKT-mål ved at

a)

redegøre for, hvordan rammen for IKT-risikostyring understøtter den finansielle enheds forretningsstrategi og -mål

b)

fastlægge risikotoleranceniveauet for IKT-risiko i overensstemmelse med den finansielle enheds risikovillighed og analysere tolerancen over for virkninger af IKT-forstyrrelser

c)

fastsætte klare informationssikkerhedsmål, herunder centrale resultatindikatorer og centrale risikoparametre

d)

redegøre for IKT-referencearkitekturen og eventuelle ændringer, der er nødvendige for at nå specifikke forretningsmål

e)

beskrive de forskellige indførte mekanismer til detektion af IKT-relaterede hændelser, forebygge deres virkning og give beskyttelse mod den

f)

dokumentere den nuværende situation for den digitale operationelle modstandsdygtighed på grundlag af antallet af indberettede større IKT-relaterede hændelser og de forebyggende foranstaltningers effektivitet

g)

gennemføre test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed i overensstemmelse med denne forordnings kapitel IV

h)

fastlægge en kommunikationsstrategi i tilfælde af IKT-relaterede hændelser, hvis offentliggørelse er påkrævet i henhold til artikel 14.

EULAW Artikel 6 9

9.   Finansielle enheder kan i forbindelse med strategien for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed som omhandlet i stk. 8 fastlægge en helhedsorienteret strategi med flere IKT-udbydere på koncern- eller enhedsplan, som viser, hvor der er stor afhængighed af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, og begrunde den pågældende udbudssammensætning af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

EULAW Artikel 6 10

10.   Finansielle enheder kan i overensstemmelse med sektorspecifik EU-ret og national ret outsource de opgaver, der er forbundet med efterprøvning af overholdelsen af kravene til IKT-risikostyring, til koncerninterne eller eksterne virksomheder. I tilfælde af en sådan outsourcing er den finansielle enhed fortsat fuldt ud ansvarlig for at efterprøve overholdelsen af kravene til IKT-risikostyring.

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 32 Behandlingssikkerhed
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-

Linkede sager

Sagslinks
Linktype Sag
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Govern
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 Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
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 Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-07.01B
is blocked by RSK-01 Risk Management Policy – Assessment Procedure
blocks GV GOVERN
blocks GV.PO-02 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and …
  • 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.