+Article 98 Normes techniques de réglementation concernant l’authentification et la communication
---+Article 98 1.
---+Article 98 2.
---+Article 98 3.
---+Article 98 4.
---+Article 98 5.

Article 98 Normes techniques de réglementation concernant l’authentification et la communication

-

1. Vue d’ensemble

,
Article 98 1.

L’ABE, en étroite coopération avec la BCE et après avoir consulté toutes les parties concernées, y compris sur le marché des services de paiement, représentant tous les intérêts en présence, élabore des projets de normes techniques de réglementation à l’intention des prestataires de services de paiement visés à l’article 1er, paragraphe 1, de la présente directive, conformément à l’article 10 du règlement (UE) no 1093/2010, précisant:

a) 

les exigences relatives à l’authentification forte du client visée à l’article 97, paragraphes 1 et 2;

b) 

les dérogations à l’application de l’article 97, paragraphes 1, 2 et 3, sur la base des critères établis au paragraphe 3 du présent article;

c) 

les exigences auxquelles doivent satisfaire les mesures de sécurité, conformément à l’article 97, paragraphe 3, afin de protéger la confidentialité et l’intégrité des données de sécurité personnalisées de l’utilisateur de services de paiement; et

d) 

les exigences applicables aux normes ouvertes communes et sécurisées de communication aux fins de l’identification, de l’authentification, de la notification et de l’information, ainsi que pour la mise en œuvre des mesures de sécurité, entre les prestataires de services de paiement gestionnaires du compte, les prestataires de services d’initiation de paiement, les prestataires de services d’information sur les comptes, les payeurs, les bénéficiaires et d’autres prestataires de services de paiement.
Article 98 2.

Les projets de normes techniques de réglementation visés au paragraphe 1 sont élaborés par l’ABE en vue de:

a) 

garantir un niveau de sécurité approprié pour les utilisateurs de services de paiement et les prestataires de services de paiement par l’adoption d’exigences efficaces et fondées sur les risques;

b) 

garantir la sécurité des fonds et des données à caractère personnel des utilisateurs de services de paiement;

c) 

garantir et maintenir une concurrence équitable entre l’ensemble des prestataires de services de paiement;

d) 

garantir la neutralité du modèle commercial et des technologies;

e) 

permettre le développement de moyens de paiement innovants, accessibles et faciles à utiliser.
Article 98 3.

Les dérogations visées au paragraphe 1, point b), reposent sur les critères suivants:

a) 

le niveau de risque lié au service fourni;

b) 

le montant, le caractère récurrent de l’opération ou les deux;

c) 

le moyen utilisé pour exécuter l’opération.
Article 98 4.
L’ABE soumet les projets de normes techniques de réglementation visés au paragraphe 1 à la Commission d’ici au 13 janvier 2017.

La Commission est habilitée à adopter lesdites normes techniques de réglementation, conformément aux articles 10 à 14 du règlement (UE) no 1093/2010.
Article 98 5.
Conformément à l’article 10 du règlement (UE) no 1093/2010, l’ABE réexamine et, le cas échéant, met à jour les normes techniques de réglementation à intervalles réguliers, afin notamment de tenir compte de l’innovation et des progrès technologiques, ainsi que des dispositions du chapitre II du règlement (UE) 2022/2554.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Normes associées

Normes
SCF Secure Practices Alignment Justification

Description

Mechanisms exist to align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Informal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Formal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.
∙ Gap analysis documentation
∙ Written justification for framework choices.

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Documented gap analysis and justification
∙ GRC platform alignment reports (e.g., SCFConnect)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Regulatory mapping evidence packages
∙ GRC platform with framework comparison reporting

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ External auditor validation
∙ Board-level reporting on framework compliance
∙ GRC platform with automated framework mapping

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).

Level 3 Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

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.