+18. cikk Az IKT-vonatkozású incidensek és a kiberfenyegetések osztályozása
---+18. cikk (1)
---+18. cikk (2)
---+18. cikk (3)
---+18. cikk (4)

18. cikk Az IKT-vonatkozású incidensek és a kiberfenyegetések osztályozása

1. Áttekintés

,
18. cikk (1)

A pénzügyi szervezeteknek a következő kritériumok alapján kell osztályozniuk az IKT-vonatkozású incidenseket, és megállapítaniuk azok hatását:

a) 

az IKT-vonatkozású incidens által érintett ügyfelek vagy pénzügyi partnerek száma és/vagy relevanciája, és – adott esetben – az érintett tranzakciók mennyisége vagy száma, valamint az, hogy az IKT-vonatkozású incidensnek van-e a hírnevet érintő hatása;

b) 

az IKT-vonatkozású incidens időtartama, beleértve a leállási időt is;

c) 

az IKT-vonatkozású incidens földrajzi kiterjedése az érintett területek vonatkozásában, különösen, ha az több mint két tagállamot érint;

d) 

az IKT-vonatkozású incidenssel járó adatvesztések az adatok rendelkezésre állásához, hitelességéhez, integritásához vagy bizalmas jellegéhez kapcsolódóan;

e) 

az érintett szolgáltatások kritikussága, beleértve a pénzügyi szervezet ügyleteit és működését is;

f) 

az IKT-vonatkozású incidens gazdasági hatása – ideértve különösen a közvetlen és közvetett költségeket és veszteségeket – abszolút és relatív értelemben egyaránt.
18. cikk (2)
A pénzügyi szervezetek a kiberfenyegetéseket jelentősnek minősítik a kockázatnak kitett szolgáltatások kritikussága alapján, ideértve a pénzügyi szervezet ügyleteit és műveleteit, a megcélzott ügyfelek vagy pénzügyi partnerek számát és/vagy relevanciáját, valamint a kockázatnak kitett területek földrajzi eloszlását.
18. cikk (3)

Az EFH-knak a vegyes bizottság keretében, az EKB-val és az ENISA-val egyeztetve, közös szabályozástechnikai standardtervezeteket kell kidolgozniuk, amelyekben részletesen meghatározzák a következőket:

a) 

az (1) bekezdésben meghatározott kritériumok, ideértve azon lényegességi küszöbértékeket, amelyek alapján megállapíthatók azon jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidensek, vagy adott esetben jelentős pénzforgalmi vonatkozású működési vagy biztonsági incidensek, amelyek a 19. cikk (1) bekezdésében előírt bejelentési kötelezettség alá tartoznak;

b) 

azon kritériumok, amelyek alapján az illetékes hatóságok értékelik a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidensek vagy adott esetben a jelentős pénzforgalmi vonatkozású működési vagy biztonsági incidensek relevanciáját más tagállamokban a releváns illetékes hatóságok szempontjából, továbbá a jelentős IKT-vonatkozású incidensekkel vagy adott esetben a jelentős pénzforgalmi vonatkozású működési vagy biztonsági incidensekkel kapcsolatos bejelentések azon részletei, amelyeket a 19. cikk (6) és (7) bekezdésének megfelelően meg kell osztaniuk más illetékes hatóságokkal;

c) 

az e cikk (2) bekezdésében meghatározott kritériumok, beleértve a jelentős kiberfenyegetések meghatározására vonatkozó, magasnak minősülő lényegességi küszöbértékeket.
18. cikk (4)
Az e cikk (3) bekezdésében említett közös szabályozástechnikai standardtervezetek kidolgozása során az EFH-knak figyelembe kell venniük a 4. cikk (2) bekezdésében meghatározott kritériumokat, valamint a nemzetközi szabványokat, az ENISA által kidolgozott és közzétett iránymutatásokat és specifikációkat, ideértve adott esetben a más gazdasági ágazatokra vonatkozó specifikációkat is. A 4. cikk (2) bekezdésében meghatározott kritériumok alkalmazása céljából az EFH-knak megfelelően figyelembe kell venniük a mikrovállalkozások és a kis- és középvállalkozások azon igényét, hogy elegendő erőforrást és kapacitást mozgósítsanak az IKT-vonatkozású incidensek gyors kezelésének biztosítása érdekében.

Az EFH-knak az említett közös szabályozástechnikai standardtervezeteket 2024. január 17-ig be kell nyújtaniuk a Bizottságnak.

A Bizottság felhatalmazást kap arra, hogy az 1093/2010/EU, az 1094/2010/EU és az 1095/2010/EU rendelet 10–14. cikkével összhangban a (3) bekezdésben említett szabályozástechnikai standardok elfogadása útján kiegészítse ezt a rendeletet.

1.1 Hivatkozások

1.2 Azonosított követelmények

1.3 Kapcsolódó szabványok

2. Azonosított követelmények

Követelmények

3. Kapcsolódó szabványok

Szabványok
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.