+Executive Leadership Approval For Managing Material Risk
|
Executive Leadership Approval For Managing Material Risk
Description
Mechanisms exist to obtain executive leadership approval for risk management decisions involving material risk.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Owner approves decisions on significant risks; decisions documented
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Executive sign-off for material risk decisions recorded in risk register
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Material risk decisions escalated to executive leadership with documented approval
∙ Risk register with approval fields
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk governance committee with executive approval authority for material risks
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise risk governance with board/executive approval workflows for material risk
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM)
∙ Materiality determination procedures
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 obtain executive leadership approval for risk management decisions involving material risk.
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 3 Gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC
Artículo 3
Gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC
Las entidades financieras elaborarán, documentarán y aplicarán políticas y procedimientos para la gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC que contengan todos los elementos siguientes:
a)
la indicación de la aprobación del nivel de tolerancia al riesgo relacionado con las TIC que se haya establecido de conformidad con el artículo 6, apartado 8, letra b), del Reglamento (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
un procedimiento y una metodología para llevar a cabo la evaluación del riesgo relacionado con las TIC que determinen:
i)
las vulnerabilidades y amenazas que afecten o puedan afectar a las funciones empresariales sustentadas y a los sistemas de TIC y activos de TIC que sustenten dichas funciones,
ii)
los indicadores cuantitativos o cualitativos para medir las repercusiones y la probabilidad de las vulnerabilidades y amenazas a que se refiere el inciso i);
c)
el procedimiento para determinar, aplicar y documentar las medidas de tratamiento de los riesgos relacionados con las TIC que hayan sido detectados y evaluados, incluidas las medidas de tratamiento necesarias para situar el riesgo relacionado con las TIC dentro del nivel de tolerancia al riesgo a que se refiere la letra a);
d)
respecto de los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC que persistan tras aplicar las medidas de tratamiento a que se refiere la letra c):
i)
disposiciones sobre la determinación de dichos riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC,
ii)
la asignación de funciones y responsabilidades en relación con:
1)
la aceptación de los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC que superen el nivel de tolerancia al riesgo de la entidad financiera a que se refiere la letra a);
2)
el proceso de revisión a que se refiere el inciso iv) de la presente letra d),
iii)
la elaboración de un inventario de los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC aceptados, que incluya la justificación para tal aceptación,
iv)
disposiciones sobre la revisión, al menos una vez al año, de los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC aceptados, incluido lo siguiente:
1)
determinación de posibles cambios en los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC;
2)
evaluación de las medidas de mitigación disponibles;
3)
evaluación de la validez y aplicabilidad, en la fecha de la revisión, de las razones que hayan justificado la aceptación de los riesgos residuales relacionados con las TIC;
e)
disposiciones sobre el seguimiento de:
i)
los cambios en el panorama de los riesgos relacionados con las TIC y las ciberamenazas,
ii)
las vulnerabilidades y amenazas internas y externas,
iii)
los riesgos relacionados con las TIC de la entidad financiera, de manera que se detecte rápidamente todo cambio que pueda afectar a su perfil de riesgo relacionado con las TIC;
f)
disposiciones sobre un proceso para garantizar que se tenga en cuenta todo cambio en la estrategia empresarial y la estrategia de resiliencia operativa digital de la entidad financiera.
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra c), el procedimiento a que se refiere dicha letra garantizará que:
a)
se haga un seguimiento de la eficacia de las medidas aplicadas para el tratamiento del riesgo relacionado con las TIC;
b)
se evalúe si se han alcanzado los niveles de tolerancia al riesgo establecidos por la entidad financiera;
c)
se evalúe si la entidad financiera ha emprendido acciones para corregir o mejorar dichas medidas en caso necesario.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
- 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.
|