+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. Vue d’ensemble
1.1 Références
1.2 Exigences identifiées
1.3 Réglementations associées
2. Exigences identifiées
Exigences
| Source |
Exigence |
3. Réglementations associées
Réglementations
| Source |
Réglementation |
|
EULAW
|
Article 3 Gestion du risque lié aux TIC
Article 3
Gestion du risque lié aux TIC
Les entités financières élaborent, documentent et mettent en œuvre des politiques et procédures de gestion du risque lié aux TIC qui contiennent l’ensemble des éléments suivants:
a)
l’indication de l’approbation du niveau de tolérance au risque lié aux TIC déterminé conformément à l’article 6, paragraphe 8, point b), du règlement (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
une procédure et une méthode d’évaluation du risque lié aux TIC, précisant:
i)
les vulnérabilités et les menaces qui affectent ou peuvent affecter les fonctions opérationnelles soutenues et les systèmes de TIC et actifs de TIC qui les soutiennent;
ii)
les indicateurs quantitatifs ou qualitatifs à utiliser pour mesurer l’incidence et la probabilité des vulnérabilités et des menaces visées au point i);
c)
la procédure de détermination, de mise en œuvre et de documentation des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC pour les risques liés aux TIC qui ont été identifiés et évalués, y compris la définition des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC nécessaires pour ramener ce risque dans les limites du niveau de tolérance au risque visé au point a);
d)
pour les risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui sont toujours présents à l’issue de la mise en œuvre des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC visées au point c):
i)
des dispositions relatives à l’identification de ces risques résiduels liés aux TIC;
ii)
l’attribution des rôles et des responsabilités concernant:
1)
l’acceptation des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui dépassent le niveau de tolérance au risque de l’entité financière visé au point a);
2)
le processus de réexamen visé au point iv) du présent point d);
iii)
l’établissement d’un inventaire des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui ont été acceptés, accompagné d’une justification de leur acceptation;
iv)
des dispositions relatives au réexamen, au moins une fois par an, des risques résiduels liés aux TIC qui ont été acceptés, comprenant:
1)
l’indication de tout changement dans les risques résiduels liés aux TIC;
2)
l’évaluation des mesures d’atténuation disponibles;
3)
une évaluation indiquant si les raisons justifiant l’acceptation des risques résiduels liés aux TIC sont toujours valables et applicables à la date du réexamen;
e)
des dispositions qui prévoient le suivi:
i)
de tout changement dans l’éventail des risques liés aux TIC et des cybermenaces;
ii)
des vulnérabilités et menaces internes et externes;
iii)
du risque lié aux TIC de l’entité financière, et qui permettent de détecter rapidement les changements susceptibles d’avoir une incidence sur son profil de risque lié aux TIC;
f)
des dispositions relatives à un processus garantissant la prise en compte de toute modification de la stratégie commerciale et de la stratégie de résilience opérationnelle numérique de l’entité financière.
La procédure visée au point c) du premier alinéa garantit, aux fins dudit point:
a)
le suivi de l’efficacité des mesures de traitement du risque lié aux TIC qui sont mises en œuvre;
b)
une évaluation indiquant si les niveaux de tolérance au risque établis pour l’entité financière ont été atteints;
c)
une évaluation indiquant si l’entité financière a pris, si nécessaire, des mesures pour corriger ou améliorer ces mesures.
|
Tickets liés
- 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.
|