+Airteagal 19 Mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC a thuairisciú agus fógra deonach a thabhairt faoi chibearbhagairtí suntasacha
---+Airteagal 19 1
---+Airteagal 19 2
---+Airteagal 19 3
---+Airteagal 19 4
---+Airteagal 19 5
---+Airteagal 19 6
---+Airteagal 19 7
---+Airteagal 19 8
|
Airteagal 19 Mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC a thuairisciú agus fógra deonach a thabhairt faoi chibearbhagairtí suntasacha
-
1. Forbhreathnú
| Teideal |
Rialáil |
|
Airteagal 19 1
|
1. Tuairisceoidh eintitis airgeadais mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC don údarás inniúil ábhartha dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 46 i gcomhréir le mír 4 den Airteagal seo.
I gcás ina mbeidh eintiteas airgeadais faoi réir maoirseachta ag níos mó ná údarás inniúil náisiúnta amháin dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 46, ainmneoidh na Ballstáit údarás inniúil aonair mar an t-údarás inniúil ábhartha a bheidh freagrach as na feidhmeanna agus na dualgais dá bhforáiltear san Airteagal seo a chur i gcrích.
Déanfaidh institiúidí creidmheasa a aicmítear mar institiúidí suntasacha, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 6(4) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1024/2013, mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC a thuairisciú don údarás inniúil náisiúnta ábhartha arna ainmniú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 4 de Threoir 2013/36/AE, a tharchuirfidh an tuarascáil sin láithreach chuig BCE.
Chun críche na chéad fhomhíre, tabharfaidh eintitis airgeadais, tar éis dóibh an fhaisnéis ábhartha uile a bhailiú agus a anailísiú, an fógra tosaigh agus na tuarascálacha dá dtagraítear i mír 4 den Airteagal seo ar aird trí úsáid a bhaint as na teimpléid dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 20 agus cuirfidh siad iad faoi bhráid an údaráis inniúil. I gcás nach mbeidh sé indéanta go teicniúil an fógra tosaigh a chur isteach trí úsáid a bhaint as an teimpléad, tabharfaidh eintitis airgeadais fógra ina leith don údarás inniúil trí mhodhanna malartacha.
Beidh san fhógra tosaigh agus sna tuarascálacha dá dtagraítear i mír 4 an fhaisnéis uile is gá don údarás inniúil chun a shuntasaí agus atá an mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC a chinneadh agus chun tionchair fhéideartha thrasteorann a mheasúnú.
Gan dochar don tuairisciú de bhun na chéad fhomhíre arna dhéanamh ag an eintiteas airgeadais don údarás inniúil ábhartha, féadfaidh na Ballstáit a chinneadh, ina theannta sin, go dtabharfaidh roinnt eintiteas airgeadais, nó iad ar fad, an fógra tosaigh agus gach tuarascáil dá dtagraítear i mír 4 den Airteagal seo trí úsáid a bhaint as na teimpléid dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 20 do na húdaráis inniúla nó do na foirne freagartha do theagmhais a bhaineann le slándáil ríomhairí (CSIRTanna) arna n-ainmniú nó arna mbunú i gcomhréir le Treoir (AE) 2022/2555 .
|
|
Airteagal 19 2
|
2. Féadfaidh eintitis airgeadais, ar bhonn deonach, cibearbhagairtí suntasacha a chur in iúl don údarás inniúil ábhartha i gcás ina measann siad go bhfuil an bhagairt ábhartha don chóras airgeadais, d’úsáideoirí seirbhíse nó do chliaint. Féadfaidh an t-údarás inniúil ábhartha an fhaisnéis sin a sholáthar d’údaráis ábhartha eile i gcomhréir le mír 6.
Féadfaidh institiúidí creidmheasa a aicmítear mar institiúidí suntasacha, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 6(4) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1024/2013, ar bhonn deonach, fógra a thabhairt faoi chibearbhagairtí suntasacha don údarás inniúil náisiúnta ábhartha, arna ainmniú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 4 de Threoir 2013/36/AE, a tharchuirfidh an fógra sin láithreach chuig BCE.
Féadfaidh na Ballstáit a chinneadh go bhféadfaidh na heintitis airgeadais sin a thugann fógra ar bhonn deonach i gcomhréir leis an gcéad fhomhír an fógra sin a tharchur freisin chuig CSIRTanna arna n-ainmniú nó arna mbunú i gcomhréir le Treoir (AE) 2022/2555.
|
|
Airteagal 19 3
|
3. I gcás ina dtarlóidh mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC agus ina mbeidh tionchar aige ar leasanna airgeadais cliant, cuirfidh eintitis airgeadais, gan moill mhíchuí, a luaithe a bheidh siad feasach air, a gcuid cliant ar an eolas faoin mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC agus faoi na bearta a rinneadh chun na héifeachtaí díobhálacha a bhaineann leis an teagmhas sin a mhaolú.
I gcás cibearbhagairt shuntasach, cuirfidh eintitis airgeadais, i gcás inarb infheidhme, a gcliaint a bhféadfaí difear a dhéanamh dóibh ar an eolas faoi aon bhearta cosanta iomchuí a d’fhéadfadh na heintitis sin a bhreithniú agus a dhéanamh.
|
|
Airteagal 19 4
|
4. Cuirfidh eintitis airgeadais, laistigh de na teorainneacha ama atá le leagan síos i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 20, an chéad mhír, pointe (a), pointe (ii), an méid seo a leanas faoi bhráid an údaráis inniúil ábhartha:
|
(b)
|
tuarascáil idirmheánach tar éis an fhógra tosaigh dá dtagraítear i bpointe (a), a luaithe a bheidh athrú suntasach tagtha ar stádas an teagmhais bhunaidh nó a luaithe a athrófar láimhseáil an mhórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC bunaithe ar fhaisnéis nua atá ar fáil, agus fógraí nuashonraithe ina dhiaidh sin, de réir mar is iomchuí, gach uair a bheidh nuashonrú ábhartha ar stádas ar fáil, agus ar iarraidh shonrach ón údarás inniúil;
|
|
(c)
|
tuarascáil deiridh, nuair a bheidh an anailís ar an mbunchúis curtha i gcrích, gan beann ar cibé acu ar cuireadh bearta maolaithe chun feidhme cheana féin, agus nuair a bheidh na figiúir iarbhír faoin tionchar ar fáil chun dul in ionad meastachán.
|
|
|
Airteagal 19 5
|
5. Féadfaidh eintitis airgeadais na hoibleagáidí tuairiscithe faoin Airteagal seo a sheachfhoinsiú, i gcomhréir le dlí earnálach an Aontais agus náisiúnta, chuig soláthraí seirbhíse tríú páirtí. I gcás seachfhoinsithe den sórt sin, leanfaidh an t-eintiteas airgeadais de bheith freagrach go hiomlán as na ceanglais maidir le tuairisciú teagmhas a chomhlíonadh.
|
|
Airteagal 19 6
|
6. Ar an bhfógra tosaigh agus gach tuarascáil dá dtagraítear i mír 4 a fháil, déanfaidh an t-údarás inniúil, in am trátha, mionsonraí faoin mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC a chur ar fáil do na faighteoirí seo a leanas, bunaithe, de réir mar is infheidhme, ar a n-inniúlachtaí faoi seach:
|
(b)
|
BCE, i gcás eintitis airgeadais dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 2(1), pointí (a), (b) agus (d);
|
|
(c)
|
na húdaráis inniúla, pointí teagmhála aonair nó CSIRTanna arna n-ainmniú nó arna mbunú i gcomhréir Treoir (AE) 2022/2555;
|
|
(d)
|
na húdaráis réitigh, dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 3 de Threoir 2014/59/AE, agus an Bord Réitigh Aonair (BRA) i dtaca le heintitis dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 7(2) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle (37), agus i dtaca le heintitis agus grúpaí dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 7(4)(b) agus (5) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014 má bhaineann mionsonraí den sórt sin le teagmhais lena ngabhann riosca chun feidhmeanna criticiúla a áirithiú de réir bhrí Airteagal 2(1), pointe (35), de Threoir 2014/59/AE; agus
|
|
(e)
|
údaráis phoiblí ábhartha eile faoin dlí náisiúnta.
|
|
|
Airteagal 19 7
|
7. Tar éis faisnéis a fháil i gcomhréir le mír 6, déanfaidh ÚBE, ÚEUMnó ÚEÁPC agus BCE, i gcomhairle le ENISA agus i gcomhar leis an údarás inniúil ábhartha, measúnú i dtaobh an bhfuil nó nach bhfuil an mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC ábhartha d’údaráis inniúla i mBallstáit eile. Tar éis an mheasúnaithe sin, tabharfaidh ÚBE, ÚEUM nó ÚEÁPC, a luaithe is féidir, fógra do na húdaráis inniúla ábhartha i mBallstáit eile dá réir. Tabharfaidh BCE fógra do bhaill an Chórais Eorpaigh Banc Ceannais maidir le saincheisteanna is ábhartha don chóras íocaíochta. Bunaithe ar an bhfógra sin, déanfaidh na húdaráis inniúla, i gcás inarb iomchuí, na bearta uile is gá chun cobhsaíocht láithreach an chórais airgeadais a chosaint.
|
|
Airteagal 19 8
|
8. Beidh an fógra atá le tabhairt ag ÚEUM de bhun mhír 7 den Airteagal seo gan dochar don fhreagracht atá ar an údarás inniúil mionsonraí an mhórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC a tharchur go práinneach chuig an údarás ábhartha sa Bhallstát óstach, i gcás ina mbeidh gníomhaíocht shuntasach trasteorann ag taisclann lárnach urrús sa Bhallstát óstach, i gcás inar dócha go mbeidh iarmhairtí tromchúiseacha ag an mórtheagmhas a bhaineann le TFC do mhargaí airgeadais an Bhallstáit óstaigh agus i gcás ina mbeidh socruithe comhair i measc na n-údarás inniúil a bhaineann le maoirseacht a dhéanamh ar eintitis airgeadais.
|
,
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 Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan ∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan ∙ Incident log ∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program ∙ IR playbooks ∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program ∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring ∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR) ∙ IR retainer ∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
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 Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan ∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan ∙ Incident log ∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program ∙ IR playbooks ∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program ∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring ∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR) ∙ IR retainer ∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
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.
|
|