+Risk Assessment
---+Instances Requiring A Risk Assessment
---+Risk Assessment Update
---+Risk Assessment Stakeholder Involvement

Risk Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

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 conduct recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's TAASD.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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.

1. Áttekintés

Instances Requiring A Risk Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to define instances that require a risk assessment to be performed.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document how supply chain risks are identified

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

∙ Supply chain risk assessment process and checklist

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

∙ Formal supply chain risk management program
∙ Vendor risk assessments

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

∙ Enterprise supply chain risk management (SCRM) program

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

∙ Enterprise SCRM platform (e.g., BitSight, OneTrust)
∙ Automated supply chain risk monitoring
∙ C-SCRM program

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 define instances that require a risk assessment to be performed.

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.
Risk Assessment Update

Description

Mechanisms exist to routinely update risk assessments and react accordingly upon identifying new security vulnerabilities, including using outside sources for security vulnerability information.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

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 routinely update risk assessments and react accordingly upon identifying new security vulnerabilities, including using outside sources for security vulnerability information.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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.
Risk Assessment Stakeholder Involvement

Description

Mechanisms exist to:
(1) Define applicable stakeholders for each risk assessment;
(2) Involve identified stakeholders in the risk assessment process; and
(3) Provide identified stakeholders with results of the risk assessment, upon completion.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Consider international risks when operating cross-border

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

∙ International risk assessment for cross-border operations

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

∙ Formal international risk assessment program
∙ Country-specific risk profiles

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

∙ Enterprise international risk management program
∙ Country risk monitoring

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

∙ Enterprise global risk management platform
∙ Automated country risk monitoring
∙ Geopolitical risk intelligence integration

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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:
(1) Define applicable stakeholders for each risk assessment;
(2) Involve identified stakeholders in the risk assessment process; and
(3) Provide identified stakeholders with results of the risk assessment, upon completion.

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.

1.1 Hivatkozások

1.2 Azonosított követelmények

1.3 Kapcsolódó szabályozások

2. Azonosított követelmények

Követelmények

3. Kapcsolódó szabályozások

Szabályozások
EULAW 9. cikk Kockázatkezelési rendszer
EULAW 3. cikk IKT-kockázatkezelés

3. cikk

IKT-kockázatkezelés

A pénzügyi szervezetek olyan IKT-kockázatkezelési szabályzatokat és eljárásokat dolgoznak ki, dokumentálnak és hajtanak végre, amelyek a következők mindegyikét tartalmazzák:

a) 

az (EU) 2022/2554 rendelet 6. cikke (8) bekezdésének b) pontjával összhangban megállapított IKT-kockázati toleranciaszint jóváhagyásának feltüntetése;

b) 

az IKT-kockázatértékelés elvégzésének eljárása és módszertana, szerepeltetve a következőket:

i. 

a támogatott üzleti funkciókat, az IKT-rendszereket és az e funkciókat támogató IKT-eszközöket érintő vagy esetlegesen érintő sérülékenységek és fenyegetések;

ii. 

az i. alpontban említett sérülékenységek és fenyegetések hatásának és valószínűségének mérésére szolgáló mennyiségi és minőségi mutatók;

c) 

az azonosított és értékelt IKT-kockázatokhoz tartozó IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések azonosítására, végrehajtására és dokumentálására szolgáló eljárás, beleértve az ahhoz szükséges IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések meghatározását, hogy az IKT-kockázat az a) pontban említett kockázati toleranciaszinten belül maradjon;

d) 

a c) pontban említett IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések végrehajtását követően még fennálló fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok esetében:

i. 

a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok azonosítására vonatkozó rendelkezések;

ii. 

a következőkkel kapcsolatos szerep- és felelősségi körök kijelölése:

(1) 

a pénzügyi szervezet a) pontban említett kockázati toleranciaszintjét meghaladó fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok elfogadása;

(2) 

az e d) pont iv. alpontjában említett felülvizsgálati eljárás;

iii. 

az elfogadott fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok jegyzékének kidolgozása, beleértve elfogadásuk indokolását is;

iv. 

az elfogadott fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok legalább évente egyszer történő felülvizsgálatára vonatkozó rendelkezések, beleértve a következőket:

(1) 

a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatokban bekövetkező változások azonosítása;

(2) 

a rendelkezésre álló kockázatcsökkentő intézkedések értékelése;

(3) 

annak értékelése, hogy a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok elfogadását indokoló okok a felülvizsgálat időpontjában még mindig érvényesek-e és alkalmazandók-e;

e) 

az alábbiak nyomon követésére vonatkozó rendelkezések:

i. 

az IKT-kockázatokban és a kiberfenyegetettségi helyzetben bekövetkező változások;

ii. 

belső és külső sérülékenységek és fenyegetések;

iii. 

a pénzügyi szervezet IKT-kockázatának nyomon követése, amely lehetővé teszi az IKT-kockázati profilját esetlegesen befolyásoló változások azonnali észlelését;

f) 

azon folyamatra vonatkozó rendelkezések, amely biztosítja, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet üzleti stratégiájában és digitális működési rezilienciára vonatkozó stratégiájában bekövetkező változásokat figyelembe vegyék.

Az első bekezdés c) pontjának alkalmazásában az említett pontban említett eljárásnak biztosítania kell a következőket:

a) 

a végrehajtott IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések hatékonyságának nyomon követése;

b) 

annak értékelése, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet elérte-e a megállapított kockázati toleranciaszinteket;

c) 

annak értékelése, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet szükség esetén tett-e lépéseket ezen intézkedések kijavítására vagy jobbá tételére.
EULAW 3. cikk IKT-kockázatkezelés

3. cikk

IKT-kockázatkezelés

A pénzügyi szervezetek olyan IKT-kockázatkezelési szabályzatokat és eljárásokat dolgoznak ki, dokumentálnak és hajtanak végre, amelyek a következők mindegyikét tartalmazzák:

a) 

az (EU) 2022/2554 rendelet 6. cikke (8) bekezdésének b) pontjával összhangban megállapított IKT-kockázati toleranciaszint jóváhagyásának feltüntetése;

b) 

az IKT-kockázatértékelés elvégzésének eljárása és módszertana, szerepeltetve a következőket:

i. 

a támogatott üzleti funkciókat, az IKT-rendszereket és az e funkciókat támogató IKT-eszközöket érintő vagy esetlegesen érintő sérülékenységek és fenyegetések;

ii. 

az i. alpontban említett sérülékenységek és fenyegetések hatásának és valószínűségének mérésére szolgáló mennyiségi és minőségi mutatók;

c) 

az azonosított és értékelt IKT-kockázatokhoz tartozó IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések azonosítására, végrehajtására és dokumentálására szolgáló eljárás, beleértve az ahhoz szükséges IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések meghatározását, hogy az IKT-kockázat az a) pontban említett kockázati toleranciaszinten belül maradjon;

d) 

a c) pontban említett IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések végrehajtását követően még fennálló fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok esetében:

i. 

a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok azonosítására vonatkozó rendelkezések;

ii. 

a következőkkel kapcsolatos szerep- és felelősségi körök kijelölése:

(1) 

a pénzügyi szervezet a) pontban említett kockázati toleranciaszintjét meghaladó fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok elfogadása;

(2) 

az e d) pont iv. alpontjában említett felülvizsgálati eljárás;

iii. 

az elfogadott fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok jegyzékének kidolgozása, beleértve elfogadásuk indokolását is;

iv. 

az elfogadott fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok legalább évente egyszer történő felülvizsgálatára vonatkozó rendelkezések, beleértve a következőket:

(1) 

a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatokban bekövetkező változások azonosítása;

(2) 

a rendelkezésre álló kockázatcsökkentő intézkedések értékelése;

(3) 

annak értékelése, hogy a fennmaradó IKT-kockázatok elfogadását indokoló okok a felülvizsgálat időpontjában még mindig érvényesek-e és alkalmazandók-e;

e) 

az alábbiak nyomon követésére vonatkozó rendelkezések:

i. 

az IKT-kockázatokban és a kiberfenyegetettségi helyzetben bekövetkező változások;

ii. 

belső és külső sérülékenységek és fenyegetések;

iii. 

a pénzügyi szervezet IKT-kockázatának nyomon követése, amely lehetővé teszi az IKT-kockázati profilját esetlegesen befolyásoló változások azonnali észlelését;

f) 

azon folyamatra vonatkozó rendelkezések, amely biztosítja, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet üzleti stratégiájában és digitális működési rezilienciára vonatkozó stratégiájában bekövetkező változásokat figyelembe vegyék.

Az első bekezdés c) pontjának alkalmazásában az említett pontban említett eljárásnak biztosítania kell a következőket:

a) 

a végrehajtott IKT-kockázatkezelési intézkedések hatékonyságának nyomon követése;

b) 

annak értékelése, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet elérte-e a megállapított kockázati toleranciaszinteket;

c) 

annak értékelése, hogy a pénzügyi szervezet szükség esetén tett-e lépéseket ezen intézkedések kijavítására vagy jobbá tételére.
EULAW 4. cikk Az IKT-eszközök kezelésére vonatkozó szabályzat
EULAW 14. cikk A továbbítás alatt álló információk biztonsága
EULAW 15. cikk IKT-projektmenedzsment
EULAW 28. cikk Irányítás és szervezet
EULAW 31. cikk IKT-kockázatkezelés
EULAW 31. cikk IKT-kockázatkezelés
EULAW 8. cikk Azonosítás
EULAW 21. cikk A kiberbiztonsági kockázatkezelési intézkedések
EULAW 8. cikk Azonosítás
EULAW 21. cikk A kiberbiztonsági kockázatkezelési intézkedések
EULAW 8. cikk (3)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek a hálózati és információsrendszer-infrastruktúrában, az IKT-ra támaszkodó üzleti funkcióikat, információs vagyonelemeiket és IKT-eszközeiket érintő folyamatokban és eljárásokban bekövetkezett minden jelentős változást követően kockázatértékelést kell végezniük.
EULAW 8. cikk (7)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek rendszeresen, de legalább évente, továbbá a technológiák, alkalmazások vagy rendszerek összekapcsolása előtt és után minden esetben célzottan értékelniük kell valamennyi elavult IKT-rendszer IKT-kockázatait.
EULAW 95. cikk A működési és biztonsági kockázatok kezelése

Kapcsolt feladatok

Kapcsolatok
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.01B
blocks OIS-08.01AS
blocks SP-03.03B
blocks HR-06.06B
blocks AM-06.01B
blocks AM-08.01B
blocks PS-01.02B
blocks PS-08.01B
blocks OPS-18.05B
blocks OPS-22.03B
blocks OPS-32.01B
blocks IAM-03.01B
blocks IAM-05.05B
blocks IAM-08.05B
blocks IAM-09.04B
blocks COS-03.04B
blocks DEV-01.01AC
blocks DEV-14.01AC
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks COM-03.01B
blocks PSS-04.02B
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.01B
blocks OIS-08.01AS
blocks SP-03.03B
blocks HR-06.06B
blocks AM-06.01B
blocks AM-08.01B
blocks PS-01.02B
blocks PS-08.01B
blocks OPS-18.05B
blocks OPS-22.03B
blocks OPS-32.01B
blocks IAM-03.01B
blocks IAM-05.05B
blocks IAM-08.05B
blocks IAM-09.04B
blocks COS-03.04B
blocks DEV-01.01AC
blocks DEV-14.01AC
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks COM-03.01B
blocks PSS-04.02B
is blocked by RSK-13 Risk Assessment – Assessment Procedure
blocks RA-03 Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [L] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [M] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [H] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [P] Risk Assessment
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA-01 Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
blocks ID.RA-05 Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk and inform risk response prioritization
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.