+Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
---+Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)
|
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
Description
Mechanisms exist for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic business continuity plan ∙ Regular data backup
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Business continuity plan ∙ Tested backup and restore procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal BCP/DRP program ∙ Regular backup testing ∙ Alternate processing capability
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise BCP/DRP program ∙ DR site ∙ Annual exercises ∙ RTO/RPO targets
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise BC/DR platform (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Enterprise) ∙ Dedicated DR site ∙ Automated failover ∙ Annual DR exercises
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Standard |
|
Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) ∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) ∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) ∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) ∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) ∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regolamentazioni correlate
Regolamentazioni
| Fonte |
Regolamentazione |
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 11 4
4. Le entità finanziarie predispongono, mantengono e testano periodicamente opportuni piani di continuità operativa delle TIC, in particolare per quanto riguarda le funzioni essenziali o importanti esternalizzate o appaltate tramite accordi con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 11 6
6. All’interno della gestione complessiva dei rischi informatici, le entità finanziarie:
|
a)
|
testano i piani di continuità operativa delle TIC e i piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC in relazione ai sistemi di TIC a supporto di tutte le funzioni almeno una volta all’anno nonché in caso di modifiche di rilievo ai sistemi di TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti;
|
|
b)
|
testano i piani di comunicazione delle crisi istituiti in conformità dell’articolo 14.
|
Ai fini del primo comma, lettera a), le entità finanziarie diverse dalle microimprese inseriscono nei piani dei test scenari di attacchi informatici e del passaggio tra le infrastrutture delle TIC primarie e la capacità ridondante, i backup e le attrezzature ridondanti necessarie per soddisfare gli obblighi di cui all’articolo 12.
Le entità finanziarie riesaminano periodicamente la politica di continuità operativa delle TIC e i piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC, tenendo conto dei risultati dei test svolti in conformità del primo comma e delle raccomandazioni formulate sulla base dei controlli di audit o degli esami di vigilanza.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 1
1. Allo scopo di valutare la preparazione alla gestione degli incidenti connessi alle TIC, di identificare punti deboli, carenze e lacune della resilienza operativa digitale e di attuare tempestivamente misure correttive, le entità finanziarie diverse dalle microimprese, tenuto conto dei criteri di cui all’articolo 4, paragrafo 2, stabiliscono, mantengono e riesaminano un programma di test di resilienza operativa digitale solido ed esaustivo quale parte integrante del quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici di cui all’articolo 6.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 2
2. Il programma di test di resilienza operativa digitale comprende una serie di valutazioni, test, metodologie, pratiche e strumenti da applicare conformemente agli articoli 25 e 26.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 3
3. Nello svolgimento del programma di test di resilienza operativa digitale di cui al paragrafo 1 del presente articolo, le entità finanziarie, diverse dalle microimprese, adottano un approccio basato sul rischio che prende in considerazione i criteri di cui all’articolo 4, paragrafo 2, tenendo debitamente conto del mutevole contesto dei rischi informatici, di eventuali rischi specifici cui l’entità finanziaria interessata è o potrebbe essere esposta, della criticità dei patrimoni informativi e dei servizi forniti, nonché di qualsiasi altro fattore giudicato rilevante dall’entità finanziaria stessa.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 4
4. Le entità finanziarie, diverse dalle microimprese, assicurano che i test siano svolti da soggetti indipendenti, interni o esterni. Se i test sono svolti da un soggetto incaricato dello svolgimento dei test interno, le entità finanziarie dedicano risorse sufficienti e garantiscono che siano evitati conflitti d’interessi durante le fasi di progettazione ed esecuzione del test.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 5
5. Le entità finanziarie, diverse dalle microimprese, definiscono procedure e politiche per dare un ordine di priorità ai problemi riscontrati durante lo svolgimento dei test, per classificarli e porvi rimedio; stabiliscono inoltre metodologie di convalida interne per accertare che tutti i punti deboli, le carenze o le lacune che sono stati individuati siano pienamente affrontati.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 6
6. Le entità finanziarie, diverse dalle microimprese, provvedono affinché, con cadenza almeno annuale, siano eseguiti test adeguati su tutti i sistemi e le applicazioni di TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 Componenti della politica di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 Componenti della politica di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 24 Componenti della politica di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 26 Piani di risposta e ripristino relativi alle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 39 Componenti del piano di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 39 Componenti del piano di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 39 Componenti del piano di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 39 Componenti del piano di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 39 Componenti del piano di continuità operativa delle TIC
-
|
Ticket collegati
- Secure Controls Framework -
EN: GRCA includes the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) content, © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. SCF control numbers, names, descriptions and mappings appear exactly as published by the SCF Council – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA may group or reorder SCF content for display, which does not change SCF content; the mappings are shown as links to the frameworks they name. Learn more at https://securecontrolsframework.com.
DE: GRCA enthält Inhalte des Secure Controls Framework® (SCF), © Secure Controls Framework Council, LLC, genutzt unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License. Nummern, Namen, Beschreibungen und Zuordnungen der SCF-Controls erscheinen genau so, wie der SCF Council sie veröffentlicht – https://securecontrolsframework.com. GRCA gruppiert oder sortiert SCF-Inhalte für die Anzeige, ohne sie zu verändern; die Zuordnungen erscheinen als Verknüpfungen zu den genannten Regelwerken. Mehr unter https://securecontrolsframework.com.
|