+Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals
|
Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution, vendor management solution, 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 TPM 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 a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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. Overview
1.1 References
1.2 Identified Requirements
1.3 Related Regulations
2. Identified Requirements
Requirements
| Source |
Requirement |
3. Related Regulations
Regulations
| Source |
Regulation |
|
DORA
|
DORA Ch. V Sec. I Art. 28 4.
4. Before entering into a contractual arrangement on the use of ICT services, financial entities shall:
- (a) assess whether the contractual arrangement covers the use of ICT services supporting a critical or important function;
- (b) assess if supervisory conditions for contracting are met;
- (c) identify and assess all relevant risks in relation to the contractual arrangement, including the possibility that such contractual arrangement may contribute to reinforcing ICT concentration risk as referred to in Article 29;
- (d) undertake all due diligence on prospective ICT third-party service providers and ensure throughout the selection and assessment processes that the ICT third-party service provider is suitable;
- (e) identify and assess conflicts of interest that the contractual arrangement may cause.
|
|
DORA
|
DORA Ch. V Sec. I Art. 29 1.
1. When performing the identification and assessment of risks referred to in Article 28(4), point (c), financial entities shall also take into account whether the envisaged conclusion of a contractual arrangement in relation to ICT services supporting critical or important functions would lead to any of the following:
- (a) contracting an ICT third-party service provider that is not easily substitutable; or
- (b) having in place multiple contractual arrangements in relation to the provision of ICT services supporting critical or important functions with the same ICT third-party service provider or with closely connected ICT third-party service providers.
Financial entities shall weigh the benefits and costs of alternative solutions, such as the use of different ICT third-party service providers, taking into account if and how envisaged solutions match the business needs and objectives set out in their digital resilience strategy.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 21 Cybersecurity risk-management measures
Article 21
Cybersecurity risk-management measures
1.
Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities take appropriate and proportionate technical, operational and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which those entities use for their operations or for the provision of their services, and to prevent or minimise the impact of incidents on recipients of their services and on other services.
Taking into account the state-of-the-art and, where applicable, relevant European and international standards, as well as the cost of implementation, the measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall ensure a level of security of network and information systems appropriate to the risks posed. When assessing the proportionality of those measures, due account shall be taken of the degree of the entity’s exposure to risks, the entity’s size and the likelihood of occurrence of incidents and their severity, including their societal and economic impact.
2.
The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on an all-hazards approach that aims to protect network and information systems and the physical environment of those systems from incidents, and shall include at least the following:
(a)
policies on risk analysis and information system security;
(c)
business continuity, such as backup management and disaster recovery, and crisis management;
(d)
supply chain security, including security-related aspects concerning the relationships between each entity and its direct suppliers or service providers;
(e)
security in network and information systems acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling and disclosure;
(f)
policies and procedures to assess the effectiveness of cybersecurity risk-management measures;
(g)
basic cyber hygiene practices and cybersecurity training;
(h)
policies and procedures regarding the use of cryptography and, where appropriate, encryption;
(i)
human resources security, access control policies and asset management;
(j)
the use of multi-factor authentication or continuous authentication solutions, secured voice, video and text communications and secured emergency communication systems within the entity, where appropriate.
3.
Member States shall ensure that, when considering which measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d), of this Article are appropriate, entities take into account the vulnerabilities specific to each direct supplier and service provider and the overall quality of products and cybersecurity practices of their suppliers and service providers, including their secure development procedures. Member States shall also ensure that, when considering which measures referred to in that point are appropriate, entities are required to take into account the results of the coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains carried out in accordance with Article 22(1).
4.
Member States shall ensure that an entity that finds that it does not comply with the measures provided for in paragraph 2 takes, without undue delay, all necessary, appropriate and proportionate corrective measures.
5.
By 17 October 2024, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the technical and the methodological requirements of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 with regard to DNS service providers, TLD name registries, cloud computing service providers, data centre service providers, content delivery network providers, managed service providers, managed security service providers, providers of online market places, of online search engines and of social networking services platforms, and trust service providers.
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the technical and the methodological requirements, as well as sectoral requirements, as necessary, of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 with regard to essential and important entities other than those referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.
When preparing the implementing acts referred to in the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph, the Commission shall, to the extent possible, follow European and international standards, as well as relevant technical specifications. The Commission shall exchange advice and cooperate with the Cooperation Group and ENISA on the draft implementing acts in accordance with Article 14(4), point (e).
Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
|
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.
|