+Άρθρο 96 Αναφορά συμβάντων
---+Άρθρο 96 1.
---+Άρθρο 96 2.
---+Άρθρο 96 3.
---+Άρθρο 96 4.
---+Άρθρο 96 5.
---+Άρθρο 96 6.
---+Άρθρο 96 7.
|
Άρθρο 96 Αναφορά συμβάντων
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 96 1.
|
Σε περίπτωση μείζονος λειτουργικού συμβάντος ή συμβάντος που αφορά την ασφάλεια, οι πάροχοι υπηρεσιών πληρωμών το γνωστοποιούν, χωρίς υπαίτια καθυστέρηση, στη δυνάμει της παρούσας οδηγίας αρμόδια αρχή του κράτους μέλους προέλευσης του παρόχου υπηρεσιών πληρωμών. Εάν το συμβάν επηρεάζει ή μπορεί να επηρεάσει τα οικονομικά συμφέροντα των χρηστών υπηρεσιών πληρωμών του, ο πάροχος υπηρεσιών πληρωμών ενημερώνει χωρίς υπαίτια καθυστέρηση τους χρήστες των υπηρεσιών πληρωμών του για το συμβάν και για όλα τα διαθέσιμα μέτρα που μπορούν να λάβουν για τη μείωση των αρνητικών επιπτώσεων του συμβάντος.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 2.
|
Μετά τη λήψη της γνωστοποίησης που προβλέπεται στην παράγραφο 1, η αρμόδια αρχή του κράτους μέλους προέλευσης παρέχει, χωρίς υπαίτια καθυστέρηση, τις σχετικές λεπτομέρειες του συμβάντος στην ΕΑΤ και στην ΕΚΤ. Η εν λόγω αρμόδια αρχή, αφού αξιολογήσει τη σπουδαιότητα του συμβάντος για τις σχετικές αρχές του εν λόγω κράτους μέλους, τις ενημερώνει αναλόγως. Η ΕΑΤ και η ΕΚΤ αξιολογούν, σε συνεργασία με την αρμόδια αρχή του κράτους μέλους προέλευσης, τη σπουδαιότητα του συμβάντος για τις άλλες σχετικές ενωσιακές και εθνικές αρχές και τις ενημερώνουν αναλόγως. Η ΕΚΤ ενημερώνει τα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Συστήματος Κεντρικών Τραπεζών για θέματα που σχετίζονται με το σύστημα πληρωμών. Βάσει της εν λόγω ενημέρωσης, οι αρμόδιες αρχές λαμβάνουν, κατά περίπτωση, όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για την προστασία της άμεσης ασφάλειας του χρηματοπιστωτικού συστήματος.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 3.
|
Έως τις 13 Ιανουαρίου 2018, η ΕΑΤ, σε στενή συνεργασία με την ΕΚΤ και μετά από διαβούλευση με όλα τα σχετικά ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη, περιλαμβανομένων αυτών της αγοράς υπηρεσιών πληρωμών που εκφράζουν τα συμφέροντα όλων των εμπλεκόμενων μερών, εκδίδει κατευθυντήριες γραμμές σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 16 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1093/2010 προς:
α)
τους παρόχους υπηρεσιών πληρωμών, σχετικά με την ταξινόμηση των μειζόνων συμβάντων της παραγράφου 1 και σχετικά με το περιεχόμενο, τη μορφή, όπου περιλαμβάνονται τυποποιημένα υποδείγματα κοινοποίησης, και τις διαδικασίες γνωστοποίησης τέτοιου είδους συμβάντων·
β)
τις αρμόδιες αρχές, σχετικά με τα κριτήρια για την αξιολόγηση του συμβάντος και τις λεπτομέρειες από τις εκθέσεις για το συμβάν που πρόκειται να ανταλλάσσονται με άλλες εγχώριες αρχές.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 4.
|
Η ΕΑΤ, σε στενή συνεργασία με την ΕΚΤ, επανεξετάζει τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 3 σε τακτική βάση και εν πάση περιπτώσει τουλάχιστον κάθε δύο χρόνια.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 5.
|
Κατά την έκδοση και την επανεξέταση των κατευθυντήριων γραμμών που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 3, η ΕΑΤ λαμβάνει υπόψη τα πρότυπα και/ή τις προδιαγραφές που καταρτίζει και δημοσιεύει ο Οργανισμός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την Ασφάλεια Δικτύων και Πληροφοριών για τους τομείς που ασκούν δραστηριότητες άλλες από την παροχή υπηρεσιών πληρωμών.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 6.
|
Τα κράτη μέλη διασφαλίζουν ότι οι πάροχοι υπηρεσιών πληρωμών παρέχουν, τουλάχιστον σε ετήσια βάση, στατιστικά στοιχεία σχετικά με την απάτη για τα διάφορα μέσα πληρωμών στις οικείες αρμόδιες αρχές. Οι εν λόγω αρμόδιες αρχές διαβιβάζουν στην ΕΑΤ και την ΕΚΤ τα δεδομένα αυτού του είδους σε συγκεντρωτική μορφή.
|
|
Άρθρο 96 7.
|
Τα κράτη μέλη διασφαλίζουν ότι οι παράγραφοι 1 έως 5 του παρόντος άρθρου δεν εφαρμόζονται:
α)
στους παρόχους υπηρεσιών πληρωμών που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 1 παράγραφος 1 στοιχεία α), β) και δ) της παρούσας οδηγίας·
β)
στους παρόχους υπηρεσιών πληροφοριών λογαριασμού που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 33 παράγραφος 1 της παρούσας οδηγίας·
γ)
στα ιδρύματα πληρωμών που εξαιρούνται δυνάμει του άρθρου 32 παράγραφος 1 της παρούσας οδηγίας· και
δ)
στα ιδρύματα ηλεκτρονικού χρήματος που δικαιούνται απαλλαγής όπως αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 9 παράγραφος 1 της οδηγίας 2009/110/ΕΚ.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
SCF
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Status Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Maintain records for any required compliance filings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Designate a compliance contact for required reporting
∙ Track reporting deadlines
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance calendar for required submissions
∙ Documented reporting procedures
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Compliance tracking platform
∙ Dedicated compliance officer
∙ Standardized reporting templates
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for compliance reporting
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated regulatory submission tracking
∙ Legal and compliance 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
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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
|
Serious Incident Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report any serious incident involving the organization's TAASD to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.
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.
|
|