+98. cikk A hitelesítésre és a kommunikációra vonatkozó szabályozástechnikai standardok
---+Article 98 1.
---+Article 98 2.
---+Article 98 3.
---+Article 98 4.
---+Article 98 5.

98. cikk A hitelesítésre és a kommunikációra vonatkozó szabályozástechnikai standardok

1. Áttekintés

,
Article 98 1.

EBA shall, in close cooperation with the ECB and after consulting all relevant stakeholders, including those in the payment services market, reflecting all interests involved, develop draft regulatory technical standards addressed to payment service providers as set out in Article 1(1) of this Directive in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 specifying:

(a) 

the requirements of the strong customer authentication referred to in Article 97(1) and (2);

(b) 

the exemptions from the application of Article 97(1), (2) and (3), based on the criteria established in paragraph 3 of this Article;

(c) 

the requirements with which security measures have to comply, in accordance with Article 97(3) in order to protect the confidentiality and the integrity of the payment service users’ personalised security credentials; and

(d) 

the requirements for common and secure open standards of communication for the purpose of identification, authentication, notification, and information, as well as for the implementation of security measures, between account servicing payment service providers, payment initiation service providers, account information service providers, payers, payees and other payment service providers.
Article 98 2.

The draft regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 1 shall be developed by EBA in order to:

(a) 

ensure an appropriate level of security for payment service users and payment service providers, through the adoption of effective and risk-based requirements;

(b) 

ensure the safety of payment service users’ funds and personal data;

(c) 

secure and maintain fair competition among all payment service providers;

(d) 

ensure technology and business-model neutrality;

(e) 

allow for the development of user-friendly, accessible and innovative means of payment.
Article 98 3.

The exemptions referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be based on the following criteria:

(a) 

the level of risk involved in the service provided;

(b) 

the amount, the recurrence of the transaction, or both;

(c) 

the payment channel used for the execution of the transaction.
Article 98 4.
EBA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission by 13 January 2017.

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt those regulatory technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 98 5.
In accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, EBA shall review and, if appropriate, update the regulatory technical standards on a regular basis in order, inter alia, to take account of innovation and technological developments, and of the provisions of Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554.

1.1 Hivatkozások

1.2 Azonosított követelmények

1.3 Kapcsolódó szabványok

2. Azonosított követelmények

Követelmények

3. Kapcsolódó szabványok

Szabványok
SCF Secure Practices Alignment Justification

Description

Mechanisms exist to align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Informal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Formal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.
∙ Gap analysis documentation
∙ Written justification for framework choices.

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Documented gap analysis and justification
∙ GRC platform alignment reports (e.g., SCFConnect)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Regulatory mapping evidence packages
∙ GRC platform with framework comparison reporting

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ External auditor validation
∙ Board-level reporting on framework compliance
∙ GRC platform with automated framework mapping

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.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).

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 align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

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.