+Risk Monitoring
|
Risk Monitoring
Description
Mechanisms exist to monitor risk as an integral part of the continuous monitoring strategy, including:
(1) The effectiveness of security, compliance and resilience controls;
(2) Changes to the organization's risk profile; and
(3) Changes to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that affect risk.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk register
∙ Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk register
∙ Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk register
∙ Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk register
∙ Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk register
∙ Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
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 ensure risk monitoring as an integral part of the continuous monitoring strategy that includes monitoring the effectiveness of security, compliance and resilience controls, compliance and change management.
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. Pregled
1.1 Reference
1.2 Utvrđeni zahtjevi
1.3 Povezani propisi
2. Utvrđeni zahtjevi
3. Povezani propisi
Propisi
| Izvor |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Članak 3. Upravljanje IKT rizicima
Članak 3.
Financijski subjekti izrađuju, dokumentiraju i provode politike i postupke za upravljanje IKT rizicima koji sadržavaju sve sljedeće:
(a)
navođenje odobrenja razine tolerancije na IKT rizik utvrđene u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 8. točkom (b) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554;
(b)
postupak i metodologiju za provedbu procjene IKT rizika kojom se utvrđuju:
i.
ranjivosti i prijetnje koje utječu ili mogu utjecati na poslovne funkcije koje se podupiru, IKT sustave i IKT imovinu kojom se te funkcije podupiru;
ii.
kvantitativni ili kvalitativni pokazatelji za mjerenje učinka i vjerojatnosti pojave ranjivosti i prijetnji iz podtočke i.;
(c)
postupak za utvrđivanje, provedbu i dokumentiranje mjera za postupanje s utvrđenim i procijenjenim IKT rizicima, što uključuje određivanje mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima koje su nužne kako bi se IKT rizik smanjio na razinu tolerancije na rizik iz točke (a);
(d)
za preostale IKT rizike koji i dalje postoje nakon provedbe mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima iz točke (c):
i.
odredbe o utvrđivanju tih preostalih IKT rizika;
ii.
dodjelu uloga i odgovornosti u vezi s:
1.
prihvaćanjem preostalih IKT rizika koji prelaze razinu tolerancije financijskog subjekta na rizik iz točke (a);
2.
procesom preispitivanja iz podtočke iv. ove točke (d);
iii.
izradu popisa prihvaćenih preostalih IKT rizika uz obrazloženje prihvaćanja;
iv.
odredbe o preispitivanju prihvaćenih preostalih IKT rizika najmanje jedanput godišnje, uključujući:
1.
utvrđivanje svih promjena preostalih IKT rizika;
2.
procjenu dostupnih mjera za ublažavanje;
3.
procjenu toga jesu li razlozi za prihvaćanje preostalih IKT rizika i dalje valjani i primjenjivi na datum preispitivanja;
(e)
odredbe o praćenju:
i.
svih promjena IKT rizika i prirode kiberprijetnji;
ii.
unutarnjih i vanjskih ranjivosti i prijetnji;
iii.
IKT rizika financijskog subjekta kojim se omogućuje brzo otkrivanje promjena koje bi mogle utjecati na njegov profil IKT rizičnosti;
(f)
odredbe o procesu kojim se osigurava da se uzimaju u obzir sve promjene poslovne strategije i strategije za digitalnu operativnu otpornost financijskog subjekta.
Za potrebe prvog stavka točke (c) postupkom iz te točke osigurava se:
(a)
praćenje djelotvornosti provedenih mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima;
(b)
procjena toga jesu li postignute utvrđene razine tolerancije financijskog subjekta na rizik;
(c)
procjena toga je li financijski subjekt prema potrebi poduzeo mjere za ispravak ili poboljšanje tih mjera.
|
|
EULAW
|
Članak 3. Upravljanje IKT rizicima
Članak 3.
Financijski subjekti izrađuju, dokumentiraju i provode politike i postupke za upravljanje IKT rizicima koji sadržavaju sve sljedeće:
(a)
navođenje odobrenja razine tolerancije na IKT rizik utvrđene u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 8. točkom (b) Uredbe (EU) 2022/2554;
(b)
postupak i metodologiju za provedbu procjene IKT rizika kojom se utvrđuju:
i.
ranjivosti i prijetnje koje utječu ili mogu utjecati na poslovne funkcije koje se podupiru, IKT sustave i IKT imovinu kojom se te funkcije podupiru;
ii.
kvantitativni ili kvalitativni pokazatelji za mjerenje učinka i vjerojatnosti pojave ranjivosti i prijetnji iz podtočke i.;
(c)
postupak za utvrđivanje, provedbu i dokumentiranje mjera za postupanje s utvrđenim i procijenjenim IKT rizicima, što uključuje određivanje mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima koje su nužne kako bi se IKT rizik smanjio na razinu tolerancije na rizik iz točke (a);
(d)
za preostale IKT rizike koji i dalje postoje nakon provedbe mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima iz točke (c):
i.
odredbe o utvrđivanju tih preostalih IKT rizika;
ii.
dodjelu uloga i odgovornosti u vezi s:
1.
prihvaćanjem preostalih IKT rizika koji prelaze razinu tolerancije financijskog subjekta na rizik iz točke (a);
2.
procesom preispitivanja iz podtočke iv. ove točke (d);
iii.
izradu popisa prihvaćenih preostalih IKT rizika uz obrazloženje prihvaćanja;
iv.
odredbe o preispitivanju prihvaćenih preostalih IKT rizika najmanje jedanput godišnje, uključujući:
1.
utvrđivanje svih promjena preostalih IKT rizika;
2.
procjenu dostupnih mjera za ublažavanje;
3.
procjenu toga jesu li razlozi za prihvaćanje preostalih IKT rizika i dalje valjani i primjenjivi na datum preispitivanja;
(e)
odredbe o praćenju:
i.
svih promjena IKT rizika i prirode kiberprijetnji;
ii.
unutarnjih i vanjskih ranjivosti i prijetnji;
iii.
IKT rizika financijskog subjekta kojim se omogućuje brzo otkrivanje promjena koje bi mogle utjecati na njegov profil IKT rizičnosti;
(f)
odredbe o procesu kojim se osigurava da se uzimaju u obzir sve promjene poslovne strategije i strategije za digitalnu operativnu otpornost financijskog subjekta.
Za potrebe prvog stavka točke (c) postupkom iz te točke osigurava se:
(a)
praćenje djelotvornosti provedenih mjera za postupanje s IKT rizicima;
(b)
procjena toga jesu li postignute utvrđene razine tolerancije financijskog subjekta na rizik;
(c)
procjena toga je li financijski subjekt prema potrebi poduzeo mjere za ispravak ili poboljšanje tih mjera.
|
|
EULAW
|
Članak 31. Upravljanje IKT rizicima
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Članak 31. Upravljanje IKT rizicima
-
|
Povezani zadaci
- 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.
|