+Άρθρο 80 Διαδικασία αντιμετώπισης των συστημάτων ΤΝ που ταξινομούνται από τον πάροχο ως μη υψηλού κινδύνου κατ’ εφαρμογή του παραρτήματος III
---+Άρθρο 80 1.
---+Άρθρο 80 2.
---+Άρθρο 80 3.
---+Άρθρο 80 4.
---+Άρθρο 80 5.
---+Άρθρο 80 6.
---+Άρθρο 80 7.
---+Άρθρο 80 8.
|
Άρθρο 80 Διαδικασία αντιμετώπισης των συστημάτων ΤΝ που ταξινομούνται από τον πάροχο ως μη υψηλού κινδύνου κατ’ εφαρμογή του παραρτήματος III
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 80 1.
|
Όταν μια αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς έχει επαρκείς λόγους να θεωρεί ότι ένα σύστημα ΤΝ που έχει ταξινομηθεί από τον πάροχο ως μη υψηλού κινδύνου δυνάμει του άρθρου 6 παράγραφος 3 είναι στην πραγματικότητα υψηλού κινδύνου, η αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς διενεργεί αξιολόγηση του εν λόγω συστήματος ΤΝ όσον αφορά την ταξινόμησή του ως συστήματος ΤΝ υψηλού κινδύνου με βάση τις προϋποθέσεις που ορίζονται στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 3 και τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές της Επιτροπής.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 2.
|
Εάν, κατά τη διάρκεια της εν λόγω αξιολόγησης, η αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς διαπιστώσει ότι το σχετικό σύστημα ΤΝ είναι υψηλού κινδύνου, απαιτεί χωρίς αδικαιολόγητη καθυστέρηση από τον σχετικό πάροχο να λάβει όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για τη συμμόρφωση του συστήματος ΤΝ με τις απαιτήσεις και τις υποχρεώσεις που θεσπίζονται στον παρόντα κανονισμό, καθώς και να λάβει κατάλληλα διορθωτικά μέτρα εντός χρονικού διαστήματος που η αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς ορίζει.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 3.
|
Εάν η αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς θεωρήσει ότι η χρήση του εν λόγω συστήματος ΤΝ δεν περιορίζεται στην εθνική της επικράτεια, ενημερώνει την Επιτροπή και τα άλλα κράτη μέλη χωρίς αδικαιολόγητη καθυστέρηση για τα αποτελέσματα της αξιολόγησης και τα μέτρα που ζήτησε να ληφθούν από τον πάροχο.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 4.
|
Ο πάροχος διασφαλίζει ότι λαμβάνονται όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για τη συμμόρφωση του συστήματος ΤΝ με τις απαιτήσεις και τις υποχρεώσεις που θεσπίζονται στον παρόντα κανονισμό. Εάν ο πάροχος συγκεκριμένου συστήματος ΤΝ δεν εξασφαλίσει τη συμμόρφωση του συστήματος ΤΝ με τις εν λόγω απαιτήσεις και υποχρεώσεις εντός της περιόδου που αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 2 του παρόντος άρθρου, ο πάροχος υπόκειται σε πρόστιμα σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 99.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 5.
|
Ο πάροχος εξασφαλίζει ότι λαμβάνονται όλα τα ενδεικνυόμενα διορθωτικά μέτρα για όλα τα συστήματα ΤΝ που έχει καταστήσει διαθέσιμα στην αγορά της Ένωσης.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 6.
|
Εάν ο πάροχος του συγκεκριμένου συστήματος ΤΝ δεν λάβει επαρκή διορθωτικά μέτρα εντός της περιόδου που αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 2 του παρόντος άρθρου, εφαρμόζεται το άρθρο 79 παράγραφοι 5 έως 9.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 7.
|
Εάν, κατά τη διάρκεια της αξιολόγησης κατά την παράγραφο 1 του παρόντος άρθρου, η αρχή εποπτείας της αγοράς διαπιστώσει ότι το σύστημα ΤΝ χαρακτηρίστηκε εσφαλμένα από τον πάροχο ως μη υψηλού κινδύνου με σκοπό την καταστρατήγηση της εφαρμογής των απαιτήσεων του κεφαλαίου III τμήμα 2, ο πάροχος υπόκειται σε πρόστιμα σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 99.
|
|
Άρθρο 80 8.
|
Κατά την άσκηση της εξουσίας τους να παρακολουθούν την εφαρμογή του παρόντος άρθρου και σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 11 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2019/1020, οι αρχές εποπτείας της αγοράς μπορούν να διενεργούν κατάλληλους ελέγχους, λαμβάνοντας ιδίως υπόψη τις πληροφορίες που είναι αποθηκευμένες στη βάση δεδομένων της ΕΕ που αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 71 του παρόντος κανονισμού.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
SCF
|
Non-Conformity Corrective Action
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings
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
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
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
|
Non-Conformity Corrective Action
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings
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
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
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.
|
|