+Review of Third-Party Services
|
Review of Third-Party Services
Description
Mechanisms exist to monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
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 10 Gestione delle vulnerabilità e delle patch
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 Principi generali
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 Principali disposizioni contrattuali
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 6
6. Nell’esercizio dei diritti di accesso, ispezione e audit nei confronti del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, le entità finanziarie predeterminano, sulla base di un approccio basato sul rischio, la frequenza delle verifiche di audit e delle ispezioni nonché i settori da sottoporre ad audit, aderendo a standard di audit comunemente accettate in conformità di eventuali indicazioni di vigilanza sull’uso e l’integrazione di tali standard di audit.
Laddove gli accordi contrattuali conclusi con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC comportino un’elevata complessità tecnica, l’entità finanziaria verifica che i revisori, indipendentemente dal fatto che siano revisori interni o esterni o siano un gruppo di revisori, possiedano competenze e conoscenze adeguate per svolgere efficacemente gli audit e le valutazioni del caso.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 3
3. Gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti comprendono, in aggiunta agli elementi di cui al paragrafo 2, almeno quanto segue:
|
a)
|
la descrizione completa dei livelli di servizio, comprendente i relativi aggiornamenti e revisioni con precisi obiettivi quantitativi e qualitativi, in termini di prestazioni, nell’ambito dei livelli di servizio concordati, in modo da consentire un monitoraggio efficace da parte dell’entità finanziaria dei servizi TIC e l’applicazione, senza indebito ritardo, di opportune azioni correttive qualora i livelli di servizio concordati non siano rispettati;
|
|
b)
|
termini di preavviso e obblighi di segnalazione per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC nei confronti dell’entità finanziaria, tra cui la notifica di eventuali sviluppi che potrebbero esercitare un impatto significativo sulla capacità del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di prestare servizi a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti efficacemente, in linea con i livelli di servizio concordati;
|
|
c)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di attuare e testare i piani operativi d’emergenza e di predisporre misure, strumenti e politiche per la sicurezza delle TIC che offrano un adeguato livello di sicurezza per la fornitura dei servizi da parte dell’entità finanziaria, in linea con il proprio quadro normativo;
|
|
d)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di partecipare e cooperare pienamente al TLPT dell’entità finanziaria di cui agli articoli 26 e 27;
|
|
e)
|
il diritto di monitorare costantemente le prestazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, che comporta quanto segue:
|
i)
|
diritti incondizionati di accesso, ispezione e audit da parte dell’entità finanziaria — o di un terzo designato a tal fine — e dell’autorità competente nonché il diritto di ottenere copia della documentazione pertinente in loco, se di importanza critica per le operazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, il cui effettivo esercizio non sia impedito o limitato da altri accordi contrattuali o politiche di attuazione;
|
|
ii)
|
il diritto di concordare livelli di garanzia alternativi, qualora siano interessati i diritti di altri clienti;
|
|
iii)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di cooperare senza riserve nel corso delle ispezioni e degli audit in loco svolti dalle autorità competenti, dall’autorità di sorveglianza capofila, dall’entità finanziaria o da un terzo designato; e
|
|
iv)
|
l’obbligo di fornire dettagli sull’ambito di applicazione, sulle procedure da seguire e sulla frequenza di tali ispezioni e audit;
|
|
|
f)
|
le strategie di uscita, in particolare la definizione di un adeguato periodo di transizione obbligatorio:
|
i)
|
durante il quale il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC continuerà a prestare i suoi servizi TIC o a esercitare le sue funzioni allo scopo di ridurre il rischio di perturbazioni presso l’entità finanziaria o di garantire la sua efficace risoluzione e ristrutturazione;
|
|
ii)
|
che permetta all’entità finanziaria di migrare verso un altro fornitore terzo di servizi TIC oppure di adottare soluzioni interne coerenti con la complessità del servizio prestato.
|
|
In deroga alla lettera e), il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC e l’entità finanziaria che è una microimpresa possono convenire che i diritti di accesso, ispezione e audit dell’entità finanziaria possano essere delegati a un terzo indipendente, nominato dal fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, e che l’entità finanziaria possa richiedere in qualsiasi momento al terzo informazioni e garanzie sulle prestazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC.
|
Ticket collegati
Collegamenti
| Tipo di collegamento |
Ticket |
|
is related to
|
Semi-Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
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
|
Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
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
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Privacy Harm / Unauthorized Processing |
|
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
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
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
|
PS-01.05B |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.06B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-02.01AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.02AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.02B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.03B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.04B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.07B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.01AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-05.03AC |
|
blocks
|
SSO-06.02B |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-15 Review of Third-Party Services – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
SR-06(01) Testing and Analysis |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 [M] Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
SR-06 [H] Supplier Assessments and Reviews |
|
blocks
|
03.16.03 External System Services |
|
blocks
|
03.17.02 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-07 The risks posed by a supplier, their products and services, and other third parties are understood, recorded, prioritized, assessed, responded to, … |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-01 Improvements are identified from evaluations |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties |
- 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.
|