+Product Management
|
Product Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218, NIST SP 800-160, etc.).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern changes to the software library to prevent unauthorized changes and create an audit trail of changes made.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218, NIST SP 800-160, etc.).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
▪ Development and acquisition management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution, software testing tools, 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 TDA 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 design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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. Übersicht
1.1 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Related Regulations
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Source |
Anforderung |
3. Related Regulations
Regulations
| Source |
Regulierung |
|
DORA
|
DORA Ch. II Sec. II Art. 13 7.
7. Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall monitor relevant technological developments on a continuous basis, also with a view to understanding the possible impact of the deployment of such new technologies on ICT security requirements and digital operational resilience. They shall keep uptodate with the latest ICT risk management processes, in order to effectively combat current or new forms of cyber-attacks.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 14 Human oversight
Article 14
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can be effectively overseen by natural persons during the period in which they are in use.
2. Human oversight shall aim to prevent or minimise the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular where such risks persist despite the application of other requirements set out in this Section.
3. The oversight measures shall be commensurate with the risks, level of autonomy and context of use of the high-risk AI system, and shall be ensured through either one or both of the following types of measures:
|
(a)
|
measures identified and built, when technically feasible, into the high-risk AI system by the provider before it is placed on the market or put into service;
|
|
(b)
|
measures identified by the provider before placing the high-risk AI system on the market or putting it into service and that are appropriate to be implemented by the deployer.
|
4. For the purpose of implementing paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the high-risk AI system shall be provided to the deployer in such a way that natural persons to whom human oversight is assigned are enabled, as appropriate and proportionate:
|
(a)
|
to properly understand the relevant capacities and limitations of the high-risk AI system and be able to duly monitor its operation, including in view of detecting and addressing anomalies, dysfunctions and unexpected performance;
|
|
(b)
|
to remain aware of the possible tendency of automatically relying or over-relying on the output produced by a high-risk AI system (automation bias), in particular for high-risk AI systems used to provide information or recommendations for decisions to be taken by natural persons;
|
|
(c)
|
to correctly interpret the high-risk AI system’s output, taking into account, for example, the interpretation tools and methods available;
|
|
(d)
|
to decide, in any particular situation, not to use the high-risk AI system or to otherwise disregard, override or reverse the output of the high-risk AI system;
|
|
(e)
|
to intervene in the operation of the high-risk AI system or interrupt the system through a ‘stop’ button or a similar procedure that allows the system to come to a halt in a safe state.
|
5. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1(a) of Annex III, the measures referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article shall be such as to ensure that, in addition, no action or decision is taken by the deployer on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless that identification has been separately verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons with the necessary competence, training and authority.
The requirement for a separate verification by at least two natural persons shall not apply to high-risk AI systems used for the purposes of law enforcement, migration, border control or asylum, where Union or national law considers the application of this requirement to be disproportionate.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 5 Procurement or use of products with digital elements
Article 5
Procurement or use of products with digital elements
1. This Regulation shall not prevent Member States from subjecting products with digital elements to additional cybersecurity requirements for the procurement or use of those products for specific purposes, including where those products are procured or used for national security or defence purposes, provided that such requirements are consistent with Member States’ obligations laid down in Union law and that they are necessary and proportionate for the achievement of those purposes.
2. Without prejudice to Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU, where products with digital elements that fall within the scope of this Regulation are procured, Member States shall ensure that compliance with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Annex I to this Regulation, including the manufacturers’ ability to handle vulnerabilities effectively, are taken into consideration in the procurement process.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 10 Enhancing skills in a cyber resilient digital environment
Article 10
Enhancing skills in a cyber resilient digital environment
For the purposes of this Regulation and in order to respond to the needs of professionals in support of the implementation of this Regulation, Member States with, where appropriate, the support of the Commission, the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre and ENISA, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States in the education field, shall promote measures and strategies aiming to:
|
(a)
|
develop cybersecurity skills and create organisational and technological tools to ensure sufficient availability of skilled professionals in order to support the activities of the market surveillance authorities and conformity assessment bodies;
|
|
(b)
|
increase collaboration between the private sector, economic operators, including via re-skilling or up-skilling for manufacturers’ employees, consumers, training providers as well as public administrations, thereby expanding the options for young people to access jobs in the cybersecurity sector.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 13 Obligations of manufacturers
Article 13
Obligations of manufacturers
1. When placing a product with digital elements on the market, manufacturers shall ensure that it has been designed, developed and produced in accordance with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part I of Annex I.
2. For the purpose of complying with paragraph 1, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the cybersecurity risks associated with a product with digital elements and take the outcome of that assessment into account during the planning, design, development, production, delivery and maintenance phases of the product with digital elements with a view to minimising cybersecurity risks, preventing incidents and minimising their impact, including in relation to the health and safety of users.
3. The cybersecurity risk assessment shall be documented and updated as appropriate during a support period to be determined in accordance with paragraph 8 of this Article. That cybersecurity risk assessment shall comprise at least an analysis of cybersecurity risks based on the intended purpose and reasonably foreseeable use, as well as the conditions of use, of the product with digital elements, such as the operational environment or the assets to be protected, taking into account the length of time the product is expected to be in use. The cybersecurity risk assessment shall indicate whether and, if so in what manner, the security requirements set out in Part I, point (2), of Annex I are applicable to the relevant product with digital elements and how those requirements are implemented as informed by the cybersecurity risk assessment. It shall also indicate how the manufacturer is to apply Part I, point (1), of Annex I and the vulnerability handling requirements set out in Part II of Annex I.
4. When placing a product with digital elements on the market, the manufacturer shall include the cybersecurity risk assessment referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article in the technical documentation required pursuant to Article 31 and Annex VII. For products with digital elements as referred to in Article 12, which are also subject to other Union legal acts, the cybersecurity risk assessment may be part of the risk assessment required by those Union legal acts. Where certain essential cybersecurity requirements are not applicable to the product with digital elements, the manufacturer shall include a clear justification to that effect in that technical documentation.
5. For the purpose of complying with paragraph 1, manufacturers shall exercise due diligence when integrating components sourced from third parties so that those components do not compromise the cybersecurity of the product with digital elements, including when integrating components of free and open-source software that have not been made available on the market in the course of a commercial activity.
6. Manufacturers shall, upon identifying a vulnerability in a component, including in an open source-component, which is integrated in the product with digital elements report the vulnerability to the person or entity manufacturing or maintaining the component, and address and remediate the vulnerability in accordance with the vulnerability handling requirements set out in Part II of Annex I. Where manufacturers have developed a software or hardware modification to address the vulnerability in that component, they shall share the relevant code or documentation with the person or entity manufacturing or maintaining the component, where appropriate in a machine-readable format.
7. The manufacturers shall systematically document, in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and the cybersecurity risks, relevant cybersecurity aspects concerning the products with digital elements, including vulnerabilities of which they become aware and any relevant information provided by third parties, and shall, where applicable, update the cybersecurity risk assessment of the products.
8. Manufacturers shall ensure, when placing a product with digital elements on the market, and for the support period, that vulnerabilities of that product, including its components, are handled effectively and in accordance with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part II of Annex I.
Manufacturers shall determine the support period so that it reflects the length of time during which the product is expected to be in use, taking into account, in particular, reasonable user expectations, the nature of the product, including its intended purpose, as well as relevant Union law determining the lifetime of products with digital elements. When determining the support period, manufacturers may also take into account the support periods of products with digital elements offering a similar functionality placed on the market by other manufacturers, the availability of the operating environment, the support periods of integrated components that provide core functions and are sourced from third parties as well as relevant guidance provided by the dedicated administrative cooperation group (ADCO) established pursuant to Article 52(15) and the Commission. The matters to be taken into account in order to determine the support period shall be considered in a manner that ensures proportionality.
Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, the support period shall be at least five years. Where the product with digital elements is expected to be in use for less than five years, the support period shall correspond to the expected use time.
Taking into account ADCO recommendations as referred to in Article 52(16), the Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 61 to supplement this Regulation by specifying the minimum support period for specific product categories where the market surveillance data suggests inadequate support periods.
Manufacturers shall include the information that was taken into account to determine the support period of a product with digital elements in the technical documentation as set out in Annex VII.
Manufacturers shall have appropriate policies and procedures, including coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies, referred to in Part II, point (5), of Annex I to process and remediate potential vulnerabilities in the product with digital elements reported from internal or external sources.
9. Manufacturers shall ensure that each security update, as referred to in Part II, point (8), of Annex I, which has been made available to users during the support period, remains available after it has been issued for a minimum of 10 years or for the remainder of the support period, whichever is longer.
10. Where a manufacturer has placed subsequent substantially modified versions of a software product on the market, that manufacturer may ensure compliance with the essential cybersecurity requirement set out in Part II, point (2), of Annex I only for the version that it has last placed on the market, provided that the users of the versions that were previously placed on the market have access to the version last placed on the market free of charge and do not incur additional costs to adjust the hardware and software environment in which they use the original version of that product.
11. Manufacturers may maintain public software archives enhancing user access to historical versions. In those cases, users shall be clearly informed in an easily accessible manner about risks associated with using unsupported software.
12. Before placing a product with digital elements on the market, manufacturers shall draw up the technical documentation referred to in Article 31.
They shall carry out the chosen conformity assessment procedures as referred to in Article 32 or have them carried out.
Where compliance of the product with digital elements with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part I of Annex I and of the processes put in place by the manufacturer with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part II of Annex I has been demonstrated by that conformity assessment procedure, manufacturers shall draw up the EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 28 and affix the CE marking in accordance with Article 30.
13. Manufacturers shall keep the technical documentation and the EU declaration of conformity at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer.
14. Manufacturers shall ensure that procedures are in place for products with digital elements that are part of a series of production to remain in conformity with this Regulation. Manufacturers shall adequately take into account changes in the development and production process or in the design or characteristics of the product with digital elements and changes in the harmonised standards, European cybersecurity certification schemes or common specifications as referred to in Article 27 by reference to which the conformity of the product with digital elements is declared or by application of which its conformity is verified.
15. Manufacturers shall ensure that their products with digital elements bear a type, batch or serial number or other element allowing their identification, or, where that is not possible, that that information is provided on their packaging or in a document accompanying the product with digital elements.
16. Manufacturers shall indicate the name, registered trade name or registered trademark of the manufacturer, and the postal address, email address or other digital contact details, as well as, where applicable, the website where the manufacturer can be contacted, on the product with digital elements, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the product with digital elements. That information shall also be included in the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II. The contact details shall be in a language which can be easily understood by users and market surveillance authorities.
17. For the purposes of this Regulation, manufacturers shall designate a single point of contact to enable users to communicate directly and rapidly with them, including in order to facilitate reporting on vulnerabilities of the product with digital elements.
Manufacturers shall ensure that the single point of contact is easily identifiable by the users. They shall also include the single point of contact in the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II.
The single point of contact shall allow users to choose their preferred means of communication and shall not limit such means to automated tools.
18. Manufacturers shall ensure that products with digital elements are accompanied by the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II, in paper or electronic form. Such information and instructions shall be provided in a language which can be easily understood by users and market surveillance authorities. They shall be clear, understandable, intelligible and legible. They shall allow for the secure installation, operation and use of products with digital elements. Manufacturers shall keep the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II at the disposal of users and market surveillance authorities for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer. Where such information and instructions are provided online, manufacturers shall ensure that they are accessible, user-friendly and available online for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer.
19. Manufacturers shall ensure that the end date of the support period referred to in paragraph 8, including at least the month and the year, is clearly and understandably specified at the time of purchase in an easily accessible manner and, where applicable, on the product with digital elements, its packaging or by digital means.
Where technically feasible in light of the nature of the product with digital elements, manufacturers shall display a notification to users informing them that their product with digital elements has reached the end of its support period.
20. Manufacturers shall either provide a copy of the EU declaration of conformity or a simplified EU declaration of conformity with the product with digital elements. Where a simplified EU declaration of conformity is provided, it shall contain the exact internet address at which the full EU declaration of conformity can be accessed.
21. From the placing on the market and for the support period, manufacturers who know or have reason to believe that the product with digital elements or the processes put in place by the manufacturer are not in conformity with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Annex I shall immediately take the corrective measures necessary to bring that product with digital elements or the manufacturer’s processes into conformity, or to withdraw or recall the product, as appropriate.
22. Manufacturers shall, upon a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, provide that authority, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, with all the information and documentation, in paper or electronic form, necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the product with digital elements and of the processes put in place by the manufacturer with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Annex I. Manufacturers shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any measures taken to eliminate the cybersecurity risks posed by the product with digital elements which they have placed on the market.
23. A manufacturer that ceases its operations and, as a result, is not able to comply with this Regulation shall inform, before the cessation of operations takes effect, the relevant market surveillance authorities as well as, by any means available and to the extent possible, the users of the relevant products with digital elements placed on the market, of the impending cessation of operations.
24. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts taking into account European or international standards and best practices, specify the format and elements of the software bill of materials referred to in Part II, point (1), of Annex I. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 62(2).
25. In order to assess the dependence of Member States and of the Union as a whole on software components and in particular on components qualifying as free and open-source software, ADCO may decide to conduct a Union wide dependency assessment for specific categories of products with digital elements. For that purpose, market surveillance authorities may request manufacturers of such categories of products with digital elements to provide the relevant software bills of materials as referred to in Part II, point (1), of Annex I. On the basis of such information, the market surveillance authorities may provide ADCO with anonymised and aggregated information about software dependencies. ADCO shall submit a report on the results of the dependency assessment to the Cooperation Group established pursuant to Article 14 of Directive (EU) 2022/2555.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 14 Reporting obligations of manufacturers
Article 14
Reporting obligations of manufacturers
1. A manufacturer shall notify any actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product with digital elements that it becomes aware of simultaneously to the CSIRT designated as coordinator, in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Article, and to ENISA. The manufacturer shall notify that actively exploited vulnerability via the single reporting platform established pursuant to Article 16.
2. For the purposes of the notification referred to in paragraph 1, the manufacturer shall submit:
|
(a)
|
an early warning notification of an actively exploited vulnerability, without undue delay and in any event within 24 hours of the manufacturer becoming aware of it, indicating, where applicable, the Member States on the territory of which the manufacturer is aware that their product with digital elements has been made available;
|
|
(b)
|
unless the relevant information has already been provided, a vulnerability notification, without undue delay and in any event within 72 hours of the manufacturer becoming aware of the actively exploited vulnerability, which shall provide general information, as available, about the product with digital elements concerned, the general nature of the exploit and of the vulnerability concerned as well as any corrective or mitigating measures taken, and corrective or mitigating measures that users can take, and which shall also indicate, where applicable, how sensitive the manufacturer considers the notified information to be;
|
|
(c)
|
unless the relevant information has already been provided, a final report, no later than 14 days after a corrective or mitigating measure is available, including at least the following:
|
(i)
|
a description of the vulnerability, including its severity and impact;
|
|
(ii)
|
where available, information concerning any malicious actor that has exploited or that is exploiting the vulnerability;
|
|
(iii)
|
details about the security update or other corrective measures that have been made available to remedy the vulnerability.
|
|
3. A manufacturer shall notify any severe incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements that it becomes aware of simultaneously to the CSIRT designated as coordinator, in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Article, and to ENISA. The manufacturer shall notify that incident via the single reporting platform established pursuant to Article 16.
4. For the purposes of the notification referred to in paragraph 3, the manufacturer shall submit:
|
(a)
|
an early warning notification of a severe incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements, without undue delay and in any event within 24 hours of the manufacturer becoming aware of it, including at least whether the incident is suspected of being caused by unlawful or malicious acts, which shall also indicate, where applicable, the Member States on the territory of which the manufacturer is aware that their product with digital elements has been made available;
|
|
(b)
|
unless the relevant information has already been provided, an incident notification, without undue delay and in any event within 72 hours of the manufacturer becoming aware of the incident, which shall provide general information, where available, about the nature of the incident, an initial assessment of the incident, as well as any corrective or mitigating measures taken, and corrective or mitigating measures that users can take, and which shall also indicate, where applicable, how sensitive the manufacturer considers the notified information to be;
|
|
(c)
|
unless the relevant information has already been provided, a final report, within one month after the submission of the incident notification under point (b), including at least the following:
|
(i)
|
a detailed description of the incident, including its severity and impact;
|
|
(ii)
|
the type of threat or root cause that is likely to have triggered the incident;
|
|
(iii)
|
applied and ongoing mitigation measures.
|
|
5. For the purposes of paragraph 3, an incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements shall be considered to be severe where:
|
(a)
|
it negatively affects or is capable of negatively affecting the ability of a product with digital elements to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity or confidentiality of sensitive or important data or functions; or
|
|
(b)
|
it has led or is capable of leading to the introduction or execution of malicious code in a product with digital elements or in the network and information systems of a user of the product with digital elements.
|
6. Where necessary, the CSIRT designated as coordinator initially receiving the notification may request manufacturers to provide an intermediate report on relevant status updates about the actively exploited vulnerability or severe incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements.
7. The notifications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article shall be submitted via the single reporting platform referred to in Article 16 using one of the electronic notification end-points referred to in Article 16(1). The notification shall be submitted using the electronic notification end-point of the CSIRT designated as coordinator of the Member State where the manufacturers have their main establishment in the Union and shall be simultaneously accessible to ENISA.
For the purposes of this Regulation, a manufacturer shall be considered to have its main establishment in the Union in the Member State where the decisions related to the cybersecurity of its products with digital elements are predominantly taken. If such a Member State cannot be determined, the main establishment shall be considered to be in the Member State where the manufacturer concerned has the establishment with the highest number of employees in the Union.
Where a manufacturer has no main establishment in the Union, it shall submit the notifications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 using the electronic notification end-point of the CSIRT designated as coordinator in the Member State determined pursuant to the following order and based on the information available to the manufacturer:
|
(a)
|
the Member State in which the authorised representative acting on behalf of the manufacturer for the highest number of products with digital elements of that manufacturer is established;
|
|
(b)
|
the Member State in which the importer placing on the market the highest number of products with digital elements of that manufacturer is established;
|
|
(c)
|
the Member State in which the distributor making available on the market the highest number of products with digital elements of that manufacturer is established;
|
|
(d)
|
the Member State in which the highest number of users of products with digital elements of that manufacturer are located.
|
In relation to the third subparagraph, point (d), a manufacturer may submit notifications related to any subsequent actively exploited vulnerability or severe incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements to the same CSIRT designated as coordinator to which it first reported.
8. After becoming aware of an actively exploited vulnerability or a severe incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements, the manufacturer shall inform the impacted users of the product with digital elements, and where appropriate all users, of that vulnerability or incident and, where necessary, of any risk mitigation and corrective measures that the users can deploy to mitigate the impact of that vulnerability or incident, where appropriate in a structured, machine-readable format that is easily automatically processable. Where the manufacturer fails to inform the users of the product with digital elements in a timely manner, the notified CSIRTs designated as coordinators may provide such information to the users when considered to be proportionate and necessary for preventing or mitigating the impact of that vulnerability or incident.
9. By 11 December 2025, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 61 of this Regulation to supplement this Regulation by specifying the terms and conditions for applying the cybersecurity-related grounds in relation to delaying the dissemination of notifications as referred to in Article 16(2) of this Regulation. The Commission shall cooperate with the CSIRTs network established pursuant to Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 and ENISA in preparing the draft delegated acts.
10. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, specify further the format and procedures of the notifications referred to in this Article as well as in Articles 15 and 16. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 62(2). The Commission shall cooperate with the CSIRTs network and ENISA in preparing those draft implementing acts.
|
Linked Issues
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|