+Airteagal 31 Soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí criticiúla a ainmniú
---+Airteagal 31 1
---+Airteagal 31 2
---+Airteagal 31 3
---+Airteagal 31 4
---+Airteagal 31 5
---+Airteagal 31 6
---+Airteagal 31 7
---+Airteagal 31 8
---+Airteagal 31 9
---+Airteagal 31 10
---+Airteagal 31 11
---+Airteagal 31 12
---+Airteagal 31 13
|
Airteagal 31 Soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí criticiúla a ainmniú
-
1. Forbhreathnú
| Teideal |
Rialáil |
|
Airteagal 31 1
|
1. Déanfaidh ÚMEnna, tríd an gComhchoiste agus i bhfianaise moladh ón bhFóram Formhaoirseachta arna bhunú de bhun Airteagal 32(1) an méid seo a leanas:
|
(a)
|
na soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí atá criticiúil d’eintitis airgeadais a ainmniú, tar éis measúnú lena gcuirfear na critéir a shonraítear i mír 2 san áireamh;
|
|
(b)
|
ÚME a cheapadh mar Phríomh-Fhormhaoirseoir le haghaidh gach soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí chriticiúil, atá freagrach, i gcomhréir le Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010 (AE), Uimh. 1094/2010 nó Uimh. 1095/2010, as na heintitis airgeadais ag a bhfuil, i dteannta a chéile, an cion is mó de shócmhainní iomlána as luach shócmhainní iomlána na n-eintiteas airgeadais uile a úsáideann seirbhísí an tsoláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí chriticiúil ábhartha, mar a chruthaítear le suim chláir chomhardaithe aonair na n-eintiteas airgeadais sin.
|
|
|
Airteagal 31 2
|
2. Beidh an t-ainmniú dá dtagraítear i mír 1, pointe (a), bunaithe ar na critéir uile seo a leanas maidir le seirbhísí TFC arna soláthar ag an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí:
|
(a)
|
an tionchar sistéamach ar chobhsaíocht, leanúnachas nó cáilíocht an tsoláthair seirbhísí airgeadais i gcás ina mbeadh mainneachtain oibríochtúil ar scála mór le sárú ag an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha maidir lena sheirbhísí a sholáthar, agus líon na n-eintiteas airgeadais agus luach iomlán shócmhainní na n-eintiteas airgeadais, dá soláthraíonn an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha seirbhísí, á chur san áireamh;
|
|
(b)
|
tréithe sistéamacha nó tábhacht shistéamach na n-eintiteas airgeadais a bhraitheann ar an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha, arna measúnú i gcomhréir leis na paraiméadair seo a leanas:
|
(i)
|
an líon institiúidí domhanda a bhfuil tábhacht shistéamach leo (G-SIInna) nó an líon institiúidí eile a bhfuil tábhacht shistéamach leo (O-SIInna) a bhraitheann ar an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí faoi seach;
|
|
(ii)
|
an t-idirspleáchas idir G-SIInna nó O-SIInna dá dtagraítear i bpointe (i) agus eintitis airgeadais eile lena n-áirítear cásanna ina soláthraíonn G-SIInna nó O-SIInna seirbhísí bonneagair airgeadais d’eintitis airgeadais eile;
|
|
|
(c)
|
a mhéid is a bhraitheann eintitis airgeadais ar na seirbhísí a sholáthraíonn an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha i ndáil le feidhmeanna criticiúla nó tábhachtacha eintiteas airgeadais a bhaineann leis an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí céanna ar deireadh, gan beann ar cibé acu a bhraitheann nó nach mbraitheann eintitis airgeadais ar na seirbhísí sin go díreach nó go hindíreach, trí shocruithe fochonraitheoireachta;
|
|
(d)
|
a inionadaithe atá an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí, agus na paraiméadair seo a leanas á gcur san áireamh:
|
(i)
|
fíor-roghanna malartacha a bheith in easnamh, fiú go páirteach, mar gheall ar an líon teoranta soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí atá gníomhach i margadh sonrach, nó mar gheall ar an sciar den mhargadh atá ag an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha, nó mar gheall ar an gcastacht nó an tsofaisticiúlacht theicniúil atá i gceist, lena n-áirítear i ndáil le haon teicneolaíocht dílseánaigh, nó gnéithe sonracha eagraíocht nó ghníomhaíocht an tsoláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí;
|
|
(ii)
|
deacrachtaí i ndáil leis na sonraí ábhartha agus na hualaí oibre ábhartha a aistriú go páirteach nó go hiomlán ón soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ábhartha go soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí eile, mar gheall ar chostais airgeadais shuntasacha, méid ama suntasach nó acmhainní eile a d’fhéadfadh a bheith i gceist leis an bpróiseas aistrithe, nó mar gheall ar riosca méadaithe TFC nó rioscaí oibríochtúla eile dá bhféadfadh an t-eintiteas airgeadais a bheith neamhchosanta orthu trí aistriú den sórt sin.
|
|
|
|
Airteagal 31 3
|
3. I gcás inar cuid de ghrúpa an tsoláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí, breithneofar na critéir dá dtagraítear i mír 2 i dtaca leis na seirbhísí TFC a sholáthraíonn an grúpa ina iomláine.
|
|
Airteagal 31 4
|
4. Ainmneoidh soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí criticiúla ar cuid de ghrúpa iad duine dlítheanach amháin mar phointe comhordúcháin chun ionadaíocht agus cumarsáid leordhóthanach leis an bPríomh-Fhormhaoirseoir a áirithiú.
|
|
Airteagal 31 5
|
5. Tabharfaidh an Príomh-Fhormhaoirseoir fógra don soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí maidir le toradh an mheasúnaithe as a eascróidh an t-ainmniú dá dtagraítear i mír 1, pointe (a). Laistigh de 6 seachtaine ó dháta an fhógra, féadfaidh an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ráiteas réasúnaithe a chur faoi bhráid an Phríomh-Fhormhaoirseora ina mbeidh aon fhaisnéis ábhartha chun críocha an mheasúnaithe. Breithneoidh an Príomh-Fhormhaoirseoir an ráiteas réasúnaithe agus féadfaidh sé a iarraidh go gcuirfear faisnéis bhreise faoina bhráid laistigh de 30 lá féilire tar éis ráiteas den sórt sin a fháil.
Tar éis soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí a ainmniú mar sholáthraí criticiúil, tabharfaidh ÚMEnna, tríd an gComhchoiste, fógra don soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí faoin ainmniú sin agus faoin dáta tosaigh éifeachtach óna mbeidh sé faoi réir gníomhaíochtaí formhaoirseachta. Ní bheidh an dáta tosaigh sin níos déanaí ná mí amháin tar éis an fhógra. Tabharfaidh an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí fógra do na heintitis airgeadais dá soláthraíonn siad seirbhísí faoina n-ainmniú mar eintitis chriticiúla.
|
|
Airteagal 31 6
|
6. Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún gníomh tarmligthe a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 57 chun an Rialachán seo a fhorlíonadh trí na critéir dá dtagraítear i mír 2 den Airteagal seo a shonrú tuilleadh, faoi cheann 17 Iúil 2024.
|
|
Airteagal 31 7
|
7. Ní úsáidfear an t-ainmniú dá dtagraítear i mír 1, pointe (a), ach go dtí go nglacfaidh an Coimisiún gníomh tarmligthe i gcomhréir le mír 6.
|
|
Airteagal 31 8
|
8. Ní bheidh feidhm ag an ainmniú dá dtagraítear i mír 1, pointe (a), maidir leis an méid seo a leanas:
|
(i)
|
eintitis airgeadais a sholáthraíonn seirbhísí TFC d’eintitis airgeadais eile;
|
|
(ii)
|
soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí atá faoi réir creataí formhaoirseachta arna mbunú chun tacú leis na cúraimí dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 127(2) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh;
|
|
(iii)
|
soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC inghrúpa;
|
|
(iv)
|
soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí nach soláthraíonn seirbhísí TFC ach i mBallstát amháin d’eintitis airgeadais nach bhfuil gníomhach ach sa Bhallstát sin.
|
|
|
Airteagal 31 9
|
9. Bunóidh, foilseoidh agus nuashonróidh ÚMEnna, tríd an gComhchoiste, liosta na soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí criticiúla ar leibhéal an Aontais go bliantúil.
|
|
Airteagal 31 10
|
10. Chun críocha mhír 1, pointe (a), tarchuirfidh údaráis inniúla, ar bhonn bliantúil agus comhiomlánaithe, na tuarascálacha dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 28(3), an tríú fomhír, a ghabhann leis an bhFóram Formhaoirseachta arna bhunú de bhun Airteagal 32. Measúnóidh an Fóram Formhaoirseachta spleáchais TFC tríú páirtí na n-eintiteas airgeadais bunaithe ar an bhfaisnéis a fhaightear ó na húdaráis inniúla.
|
|
Airteagal 31 11
|
11. Féadfaidh na soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí nach bhfuil ar an liosta dá dtagraítear i mír 9 a iarraidh go n-ainmneofar iad mar sholáthraithe criticiúla i gcomhréir le mír 1, pointe (a).
Chun crícríoch na chéad fhomhíre, cuirfidh an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí iarratas réasúnaithe faoi bhráid ÚBE, ÚEUM nó ÚEÁPC, a chinnfidh, tríd an gComhchoiste, cibé acu a ainmneofar nó nach n-ainmneofar an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí sin mar sholáthraí criticiúil i gcomhréir le mír 1, pointe (a).
Glacfar an cinneadh dá dtagraítear sa dara fomhír agus tabharfar fógra don soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí ina leith faoi cheann 6 mhí ón tráth a fhaightear an t-iarratas.
|
|
Airteagal 31 12
|
12. Ní bhainfidh eintitis airgeadais úsáid as seirbhísí soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí atá bunaithe i dtríú tír agus a ainmníodh mar sholáthraí criticiúil i gcomhréir le mír 1, pointe (a), ach i gcás ina mbeidh fochuideachta bunaithe san Aontas ag an soláthraí sin laistigh de 12 mhí tar éis an ainmnithe.
|
|
Airteagal 31 13
|
13. Tabharfaidh an soláthraí seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí criticiúil dá dtagraítear i mír 12 fógra don Phríomh-Fhormhaoirseoir faoi aon athruithe ar struchtúr bhainistíocht na fochuideachta atá bunaithe san Aontas.
|
,
1.1 Tagairtí
1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta
1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
2. Ceanglais aitheanta
Ceanglais
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
Caighdeáin
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
|
SCF
|
Contacts With Authorities
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG)
∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators
∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership
∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts
∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts
∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC)
∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships
∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA)
∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation
∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators)
∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable)
∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols
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.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement.
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.
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 identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
|
|