+Risk Tolerance
|
Risk Tolerance
Description
Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
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 organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
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. Panoramica
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 3 Gestione dei rischi informatici
Articolo 3
Gestione dei rischi informatici
Le entità finanziarie elaborano, documentano e attuano politiche e procedure per la gestione dei rischi informatici contenenti tutti gli elementi seguenti:
a)
l’indicazione dell’approvazione del livello di tolleranza per i rischi informatici stabilito in conformità dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 8, lettera b), del regolamento (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
una procedura e una metodologia per condurre la valutazione dei rischi informatici, che identifichino:
i)
le vulnerabilità e le minacce che interessano o potrebbero interessare le funzioni commerciali supportate, i sistemi di TIC e le risorse TIC che supportano tali funzioni;
ii)
gli indicatori quantitativi o qualitativi per misurare l’impatto e la probabilità delle vulnerabilità e delle minacce di cui al punto i);
c)
la procedura per identificare, attuare e documentare le misure di trattamento dei rischi informatici per i rischi identificati e valutati, compresa la determinazione delle misure di trattamento dei rischi informatici necessarie per far rientrare il rischio informatico nel livello di tolleranza per i rischi di cui alla lettera a);
d)
per i rischi informatici residui ancora presenti dopo l’attuazione delle misure di trattamento dei rischi informatici di cui alla lettera c):
i)
disposizioni relative all’identificazione di tali rischi informatici residui;
ii)
l’assegnazione di ruoli e responsabilità per quanto riguarda:
(1)
l’accettazione dei rischi informatici residui che superano il livello di tolleranza per i rischi dell’entità finanziaria di cui alla lettera a);
(2)
il processo di riesame di cui al punto iv) della presente lettera d);
iii)
l’elaborazione di un inventario dei rischi informatici residui accettati, compresa la motivazione della loro accettazione;
iv)
disposizioni relative al riesame, almeno una volta all’anno, dei rischi informatici residui accettati, che comprendano:
1)
l’identificazione di eventuali cambiamenti nei rischi informatici residui;
2)
la valutazione delle misure di attenuazione disponibili;
3)
la valutazione della validità e dell’applicabilità, alla data del riesame, delle motivazioni che giustificano l’accettazione dei rischi informatici residui;
e)
disposizioni sul monitoraggio:
i)
di qualsiasi cambiamento nel panorama dei rischi informatici e delle minacce informatiche;
ii)
di vulnerabilità e minacce interne ed esterne;
iii)
del rischio informatico dell’entità finanziaria, che consentano di individuare tempestivamente i cambiamenti che potrebbero influire sul suo profilo di rischio informatico;
f)
disposizioni relative a un processo per garantire che si tenga conto di eventuali modifiche alla strategia aziendale e alla strategia di resilienza operativa digitale dell’entità finanziaria.
Ai fini del primo comma, lettera c), la procedura di cui a tale lettera garantisce:
a)
il monitoraggio dell’efficacia delle misure di trattamento dei rischi informatici attuate;
b)
la valutazione del raggiungimento dei livelli di tolleranza per i rischi fissati dall’entità finanziaria;
c)
la valutazione del fatto che l’entità finanziaria abbia intrapreso azioni per correggere o migliorare tali misure, ove necessario.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 27 Formato e contenuto della relazione sul riesame del quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici
-
|
Ticket collegati
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|