+Article 24 Responsibility of the controller
|
Article 24 Responsibility of the controller
Article 24
Responsibility of the controller
1.
Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.
2.
Where proportionate in relation to processing activities, the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the implementation of appropriate data protection policies by the controller.
3.
Adherence to approved codes of conduct as referred to in Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms as referred to in Article 42 may be used as an element by which to demonstrate compliance with the obligations of the controller.
1. Übersicht
1.1 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Related Standards
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Source |
Anforderung |
3. Related Standards
Standards
| Source |
Anforderung |
|
SCF
|
Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ Shared drive or intranet for policy distribution (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint Online)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ Document management system (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence, Notion)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Document management / intranet portal (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence)
∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., KnowBe4, Absorb LMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Policy management platform
∙ Version-controlled policy repository with access controls
∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise policy management platform
∙ Integrated GRC policy module with automated review workflows
∙ Enterprise-wide policy acknowledgement and training integration
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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards, procedures, etc.).
▪ People affected by documentation changes are provided notification of the policy and standard changes.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).
▪ The organization's cybersecurity policies and standards are made available to internal personnel.
▪ Documented procedures exist for requesting a deviation from approved standards.
▪ The responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation is assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's GRC team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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
|
Security of Personal Data (PD)
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project 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.
Privacy (PRI) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PRI domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data privacy-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal data privacy team exists. Privacy roles are assigned to existing IT / cybersecurity.
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
Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software, customer management solution, etc.).
▪ 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 PRI 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 Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
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.
|
|