+Risk Management Policy
|
Risk Management Policy
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented risk management policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Documented annual policy review with version control
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history ∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk 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
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).
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. 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 6 1
1. Las entidades financieras contarán con un marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC sólido, completo y bien documentado como parte de su sistema global de gestión de riesgos, que les permita hacer frente al riesgo relacionado con las TIC de forma rápida, eficiente y exhaustiva y asegurar un alto nivel de resiliencia operativa digital.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 2
2. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC incluirá al menos las estrategias, las políticas, los procedimientos, y los protocolos y herramientas de TIC que sean necesarios para proteger debida y adecuadamente todos los activos de información y activos de TIC, incluidos el software, el hardware y los servidores, así como para proteger todos los componentes e infraestructuras físicos pertinentes, como locales, centros de datos y zonas sensibles designadas, a fin de garantizar que todos los activos de información y activos de TIC estén adecuadamente protegidos de los riesgos, incluidos los daños y el acceso o uso no autorizados.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 3
3. De conformidad con el marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras minimizarán las consecuencias de dicho riesgo mediante el despliegue de estrategias, políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas de TIC adecuados. Proporcionarán a las autoridades competentes que lo soliciten información completa y actualizada sobre el riesgo relacionado con las TIC y sobre su marco de gestión de dicho riesgo.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 4
4. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas encomendarán a una función de control la gestión y la supervisión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC y garantizarán un nivel adecuado de independencia de dicha función para evitar conflictos de intereses. Las entidades financieras garantizarán una separación e independencia adecuadas de las funciones de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las funciones de control y las funciones de auditoría interna, con arreglo al modelo de tres líneas de defensa o a un modelo interno de gestión y control de riesgos.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 5
5. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC se documentará y revisará al menos una vez al año, o periódicamente en el caso de las microempresas, así como cuando se produzcan incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC, y siguiendo las instrucciones de supervisión o conclusiones derivadas de los procesos pertinentes de prueba o auditoría de la resiliencia operativa digital. Se mejorará continuamente sobre la base de las enseñanzas derivadas de la aplicación y el seguimiento. Se presentará a la autoridad competente que lo solicite un informe sobre la revisión del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 6
6. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC de las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas será objeto de auditoría interna llevada a cabo por auditores con carácter periódico en consonancia con el plan de auditoría de las entidades financieras. Dichos auditores poseerán conocimientos, capacidades y pericia suficientes en materia de riesgo relacionado con las TIC, y gozarán de la independencia adecuada. La frecuencia y el enfoque de las auditorías de TIC serán acordes con el riesgo relacionado con las TIC de la entidad financiera.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 7
7. A partir de las conclusiones de la auditoría interna, las entidades financieras establecerán un proceso formal de seguimiento que incluirá normas para la oportuna verificación y corrección de los resultados problemáticos de la auditoría de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 8
8. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC incluirá una estrategia de resiliencia operativa digital que establezca cómo se aplicará el marco. A tal fin, la estrategia de resiliencia operativa digital incluirá métodos para hacer frente al riesgo relacionado con las TIC y alcanzar los objetivos específicos en materia de TIC, para lo cual:
|
a)
|
explicará cómo apoya el marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC la estrategia y los objetivos empresariales de la entidad financiera;
|
|
b)
|
establecerá el nivel de tolerancia al riesgo relacionado con las TIC, de acuerdo con la propensión al riesgo de la entidad financiera, y analizará la tolerancia al impacto de las perturbaciones de las TIC;
|
|
c)
|
establecerá objetivos claros en materia de seguridad de la información, incluidos indicadores clave de rendimiento y parámetros clave de medición del riesgo;
|
|
d)
|
explicará la arquitectura de referencia de TIC y cualquier cambio necesario para alcanzar objetivos empresariales específicos;
|
|
e)
|
esbozará los diferentes mecanismos establecidos para detectar incidentes relacionados con las TIC, prevenir su impacto y protegerse de sus efectos;
|
|
f)
|
hará constar la situación actual de la resiliencia operativa digital sobre la base del número de incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC notificados y la eficacia de las medidas preventivas;
|
|
g)
|
efectuará pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital, de conformidad con el capítulo IV del presente Reglamento;
|
|
h)
|
esbozará una estrategia de comunicación en caso de aquellos incidentes relacionados con las TIC que sea obligatorio divulgar conformidad con el artículo 14.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 9
9. Las entidades financieras podrán, en el contexto de la estrategia de resiliencia operativa digital a que se refiere el apartado 8, definir una estrategia global multiproveedor en materia de TIC a nivel de grupo o entidad, que muestre las dependencias clave de los proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC y explique los motivos subyacentes a la contratación de una combinación de proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 10
10. Las entidades financieras podrán externalizar, de conformidad con el Derecho sectorial de la Unión y nacional, a empresas externas o de su mismo grupo las tareas de verificación del cumplimiento de los requisitos de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC. En los casos en que se produzca tal externalización, la entidad financiera seguirá siendo plenamente responsable de la verificación del cumplimiento de los requisitos en materia de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 6
6. Como parte de su gestión global del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras:
|
a)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de continuidad de la actividad y los planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC en relación con los sistemas de TIC que sustenten todas las funciones al menos una vez al año, así como en caso de que se produzca cualquier cambio sustancial en los sistemas de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes;
|
|
b)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de comunicación en caso de crisis establecidos de conformidad con el artículo 14.
|
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra a), las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas incluirán, en los planes de pruebas, escenarios de ciberataques y de conmutación entre la infraestructura primaria de TIC y la capacidad redundante, las copias de seguridad y las instalaciones redundantes necesarias para cumplir con las obligaciones establecidas en el artículo 12.
Las entidades financieras revisarán periódicamente su política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y sus planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC teniendo en cuenta los resultados de las pruebas realizadas de conformidad con el párrafo primero y las recomendaciones derivadas de los controles de auditoría o las revisiones supervisoras.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 32 Seguridad del tratamiento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Lack of a security-minded workforce |
|
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
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
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
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
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
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-07.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
RSK-01 Risk Management Policy – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
GV GOVERN |
|
blocks
|
GV.PO-02 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and … |
- 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.
|