+Airteagal 18 Teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC agus cibearbhagairtí a aicmiú
---+Airteagal 18 1
---+Airteagal 18 2
---+Airteagal 18 3
---+Airteagal 18 4
|
Airteagal 18 Teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC agus cibearbhagairtí a aicmiú
-
1. Forbhreathnú
| Teideal |
Rialáil |
|
Airteagal 18 1
|
1. Aicmeoidh eintitis airgeadais teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC agus cinnfidh siad a dtionchar bunaithe ar na critéir seo a leanas:
|
(a)
|
líon agus/nó ábharthacht na gcliant nó na gcontrapháirtithe airgeadais a ndearnadh difear dóibh, agus, i gcás inarb infheidhme, méid nó líon na n-idirbheart a rinne an teagmhas a bhaineann le TFC difear dóibh, agus cibé acu ar chúis nó nár chúis é an teagmhas a bhaineann le TFC le tionchar ar a gclú;
|
|
(b)
|
fad an teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC, lena n-áirítear aga neamhfhónaimh na seirbhíse;
|
|
(c)
|
an raon geografach maidir leis na limistéir a ndearna an teagmhas a bhaineann le TFC difear dóibh, go háirithe má rinne sé difear do bhreis agus dhá Bhallstát;
|
|
(d)
|
na caillteanais sonraí atá i gceist leis an teagmhas a bhaineann le TFC, i ndáil le infhaighteacht, barántúlacht, sláine nó rúndacht sonraí;
|
|
(e)
|
criticiúlacht na seirbhísí a ndearnadh difear dóibh, lena n-áirítear idirbhearta agus oibríochtaí an eintitis airgeadais;
|
|
(f)
|
tionchar eacnamaíoch an teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC, go háirithe costais agus caillteanais dhíreacha agus indíreacha.
|
|
|
Airteagal 18 2
|
2. Déanfaidh eintitis airgeadais cibearbhagairtí a aicmiú mar chibearbhagairtí suntasacha bunaithe ar chriticiúlacht na seirbhísí atá i mbaol, lena n-áirítear idirbhearta agus oibríochtaí an eintitis airgeadais, líon agus/nó ábharthacht na gcliant nó na gcontrapháirtithe airgeadais ar díríodh orthu agus raon geografach na limistéar atá i mbaol.
|
|
Airteagal 18 3
|
3. Déanfaidh ÚMEnna, tríd an gComhchoiste agus i gcomhairle le BCE agus ENISA, dréachtchaighdeáin theicniúla rialála chomhchoiteanna a fhorbairt lena ndéanfar sonrú breise ar an méid seo a leanas:
|
(a)
|
na critéir a leagtar amach i mír 1, lena n-áirítear tairsí ábharthachta chun mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC, nó, de réir mar is infheidhme, mórtheagmhais oibríochtúla nó slándála a bhaineann le híocaíocht oibríochtúil nó slándála, atá faoi réir na hoibleagáide tuairiscithe a leagtar síos in Airteagal 19(1), a chinneadh;
|
|
(b)
|
na critéir atá le cur i bhfeidhm ag údaráis inniúla chun measúnú a dhéanamh ar ábharthacht na mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC nó, de réir mar is infheidhme, mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le híocaíocht oibríochtúil nó slándála, maidir le húdaráis inniúla ábhartha i mBallstáit eile agus mionsonraí na dtuarascálacha ar mhórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC nó, de réir mar is infheidhme, ar mhórtheagmhais a bhaineann le híocaíocht oibríochtúil nó slándála, atá le comhroinnt leis na húdaráis inniúla eile de bhun Airteagal 19(6) agus (7).
|
|
(c)
|
na critéir a leagtar amach i mír 2 den Airteagal seo, lena n-áirítear tairsí ábharthachta arda chun cibearbhagairtí suntasacha a chinneadh.
|
|
|
Airteagal 18 4
|
4. Agus na dréachtchaighdeáin theicniúla rialála chomhchoiteanna dá dtagraítear i mír 3 den Airteagal seo á bhforbairt, cuirfidh ÚMEnna san áireamh na critéir a leagtar amach in Airteagal 4(2), chomh maith leis na caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta, na treoracha agus na sonraíochtaí arna bhforbairt agus arna bhfoilsiú ag ENISA, lena n-áirítear, i gcás inarb iomchuí, sonraíochtaí d’earnálacha eacnamaíocha eile. Chun na critéir a leagtar amach in Airteagal 4(2) a chur i bhfeidhm, tabharfaidh ÚMEnna aird chuí ar an ngá atá ann do mhicrifhiontair agus fiontair bheaga agus fiontair mheánmhéide chun acmhainní agus cumais leordhóthanacha a shlógadh chun a áirithiú go ndéanfar teagmhais a bhaineann le TFC a bhainistiú go tapa.
Cuirfidh ÚMEnna na dréachtchaighdeáin theicniúla rialála chomhchoiteanna sin faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin faoin 17 Eanáir 2024.
Tarmligtear an chumhacht chuig an gCoimisiún an Rialachán seo a fhorlíonadh trí na caighdeáin theicniúla rialála dá dtagraítear i mír 3 a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagail 10 go 14 de Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010, (AE) Uimh. 1094/2010 agus (AE) Uimh. 1095/2010.
|
,
1.1 Tagairtí
1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta
1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
2. Ceanglais aitheanta
Ceanglais
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
Caighdeáin
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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.
|
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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.
|
|