+Article 24 Obligations of open-source software stewards
|
Article 24 Obligations of open-source software stewards
Article 24
Obligations of open-source software stewards
1. Open-source software stewards shall put in place and document in a verifiable manner a cybersecurity policy to foster the development of a secure product with digital elements as well as an effective handling of vulnerabilities by the developers of that product. That policy shall also foster the voluntary reporting of vulnerabilities as laid down in Article 15 by the developers of that product and take into account the specific nature of the open-source software steward and the legal and organisational arrangements to which it is subject. That policy shall, in particular, include aspects related to documenting, addressing and remediating vulnerabilities and promote the sharing of information concerning discovered vulnerabilities within the open-source community.
2. Open-source software stewards shall cooperate with the market surveillance authorities, at their request, with a view to mitigating the cybersecurity risks posed by a product with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software.
Further to a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, open-source software stewards shall provide that authority, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, with the documentation referred to in paragraph 1, in paper or electronic form.
3. The obligations laid down in Article 14(1) shall apply to open-source software stewards to the extent that they are involved in the development of the products with digital elements. The obligations laid down in Article 14(3) and (8) shall apply to open-source software stewards to the extent that severe incidents having an impact on the security of products with digital elements affect network and information systems provided by the open-source software stewards for the development of such products.
1. Overview
1.1 References
1.2 Identified Requirements
1.3 Related Standards
2. Identified Requirements
Requirements
| Source |
Requirement |
3. Related Standards
Standards
| Source |
Requirement |
|
SCF
|
Conformity Assessment
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
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, 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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to assigned cybersecurity and/or data protection controls to comply with specific compliance requirements.
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 conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual 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.
|
|