+Risk Tolerance
|
Risk Tolerance
Description
Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
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.
1. Overview
1.1 References
1.2 Identified Requirements
1.3 Related Regulations
2. Identified Requirements
Requirements
| Source |
Requirement |
3. Related Regulations
Regulations
| Source |
Regulation |
|
EULAW
|
Article 3 ICT risk management
Article 3
Financial entities shall develop, document, and implement ICT risk management policies and procedures that shall contain all of the following:
(a)
an indication of the approval of the risk tolerance level for ICT risk established in accordance with Article 6(8), point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;
(b)
a procedure and a methodology to conduct the ICT risk assessment, identifying:
(i)
vulnerabilities and threats that affect or may affect the supported business functions, the ICT systems and ICT assets supporting those functions;
(ii)
the quantitative or qualitative indicators to measure the impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities and threats referred to in point (i);
(c)
the procedure to identify, implement, and document ICT risk treatment measures for the ICT risks identified and assessed, including the determination of ICT risk treatment measures necessary to bring ICT risk within the risk tolerance level referred to in point (a);
(d)
for the residual ICT risks that are still present following the implementation of the ICT risk treatment measures referred to in point (c):
(i)
provisions on the identification of those residual ICT risks;
(ii)
the assignment of roles and responsibilities regarding:
(1)
the acceptance of the residual ICT risks that exceed the financial entity’s risk tolerance level referred to in point (a);
(2)
for the review process referred to in point (iv) of this point (d);
(iii)
the development of an inventory of the accepted residual ICT risks, including a justification for their acceptance;
(iv)
provisions on the review of the accepted residual ICT risks at least once a year, including:
(1)
the identification of any changes to the residual ICT risks;
(2)
the assessment of available mitigation measures;
(3)
the assessment of whether the reasons justifying the acceptance of residual ICT risks are still valid and applicable at the date of the review;
(e)
provisions on the monitoring of:
(i)
any changes to the ICT risk and cyber threat landscape;
(ii)
internal and external vulnerabilities and threats:
(iii)
ICT risk of the financial entity that enables promp detection of changes that could affect its ICT risk profile;
(f)
provisions on a process to ensure that any changes to the business strategy and the digital operational resilience strategy of the financial entity are taken into account.
For the purposes of the first paragraph, point (c), the procedure referred to in that point shall ensure:
(a)
the monitoring of the effectiveness of the ICT risk treatment measures implemented;
(b)
the assessment of whether the established risk tolerance levels of the financial entity have been attained;
(c)
the assessment of whether the financial entity has taken actions to correct or improve those measures where necessary.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 27 Format and content of the report on the review of the ICT risk management framework
-
|
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.
|