+Review of Third-Party Services
|
Review of Third-Party Services
Description
Mechanisms exist to monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
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 and 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 and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls.
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. Resumen
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Regulaciones relacionadas
Regulaciones
| Fuente |
Regulación |
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 10 Gestión de vulnerabilidades y parches
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 Principios generales
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 Cláusulas contractuales fundamentales
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 6
6. Al ejercer los derechos de acceso, inspección y auditoría sobre el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, las entidades financieras determinarán previamente, con arreglo a un enfoque basado en el riesgo, la frecuencia de las auditorías e inspecciones y los ámbitos que deben auditarse, según normas de auditoría comúnmente aceptadas en consonancia con las instrucciones de supervisión sobre el uso y la incorporación de dichas normas de auditoría.
Cuando los acuerdos contractuales relativos al uso de servicios de TIC celebrados con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC impliquen una gran complejidad técnica, la entidad financiera verificará que los auditores, ya sean internos, externos o un grupo de auditores, posean las capacidades y los conocimientos adecuados para llevar a cabo efectivamente las auditorías y evaluaciones pertinentes.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 3
3. Además de los elementos a que se refiere el apartado 2, los acuerdos contractuales sobre el uso de servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes incluirán por lo menos lo siguiente:
|
a)
|
descripciones completas del nivel de servicio, incluidas sus actualizaciones y revisiones, con objetivos precisos de rendimiento cuantitativos y cualitativos dentro de los niveles de servicio acordados, de modo que la entidad financiera pueda realizar un seguimiento efectivo de los servicios de TIC y que se puedan adoptar sin demora indebida las medidas correctoras adecuadas cuando no se alcancen los niveles de servicio acordados;
|
|
b)
|
plazos de notificación y obligaciones de información del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC a la entidad financiera, incluida la notificación de cualquier hecho que pueda afectar considerablemente a la capacidad del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC para prestar de forma efectiva los servicios de TIC que sustentan funciones esenciales o importantes de conformidad con los niveles de servicio acordados;
|
|
c)
|
requisitos para que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC aplique y someta apruebe los planes de contingencia empresarial y disponga de medidas, herramientas y políticas de seguridad de las TIC que proporcionen un nivel adecuado de seguridad para la prestación de servicios por parte de la entidad financiera en consonancia con su marco regulador;
|
|
d)
|
la obligación de que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC participe y coopere plenamente en las pruebas de penetración basadas en amenazas de la entidad financiera a que se refieren los artículos 26 y 27;
|
|
e)
|
el derecho a realizar un seguimiento continuo de la actuación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, lo que implica lo siguiente:
|
i)
|
derechos ilimitados de acceso, inspección y auditoría por la entidad financiera o un tercero designado, y por la autoridad competente, y el derecho a hacer copias de la documentación pertinente in situ si son esenciales para las operaciones del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, cuyo ejercicio efectivo no se vea obstaculizado o limitado por otros acuerdos contractuales o políticas de aplicación,
|
|
ii)
|
el derecho a pactar niveles de garantía alternativos si se ven afectados los derechos de otros clientes,
|
|
iii)
|
la obligación de que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC coopere plenamente durante las inspecciones y las auditorías in situ realizadas por las autoridades competentes, el supervisor principal, la entidad financiera o un tercero designado, y
|
|
iv)
|
la obligación de proporcionar detalles sobre el alcance, los procedimientos que deben seguirse y la frecuencia de tales inspecciones y auditorías;
|
|
|
f)
|
estrategias de salida, en particular el establecimiento de un período transitorio suficiente obligatorio:
|
i)
|
durante el cual el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC seguirá proporcionando las funciones o los servicios de TIC de que se trate con el fin de reducir el riesgo de perturbación en la entidad financiera o de garantizar su resolución y reestructuración efectivas,
|
|
ii)
|
que permita a la entidad financiera migrar a otro proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC o adoptar soluciones internas coherentes con la complejidad del servicio prestado.
|
|
Como excepción a lo dispuesto en la letra e), el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC y la entidad financiera que sea una microempresa podrán acordar que se puedan delegar los derechos de acceso, inspección y auditoría de la entidad financiera en un tercero independiente, designado por el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, y que la entidad financiera pueda solicitar al tercero en cualquier momento información y garantías sobre la actuación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Semi-Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.05B |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.06B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-02.01AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.02AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.03B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.04B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.07B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.01AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.03AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-06.02B |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-15 Review of Third-Party Services – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
SR-06(01) Testing and Analysis |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 [M] Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 [H] Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
03.16.03 External System Services |
|
blocks
|
03.17.02 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-07 The risks posed by a supplier, their products and services, and other third parties are understood, recorded, prioritized, assessed, responded to, … |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-01 Improvements are identified from evaluations |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties |
- 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.
|