+Articolo 19 Segnalazione dei gravi incidenti TIC e notifica volontaria delle minacce informatiche significative
---+Articolo 19 1
---+Articolo 19 2
---+Articolo 19 3
---+Articolo 19 4
---+Articolo 19 5
---+Articolo 19 6
---+Articolo 19 7
---+Articolo 19 8
|
Articolo 19 Segnalazione dei gravi incidenti TIC e notifica volontaria delle minacce informatiche significative
-
1. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Regolamentazione |
|
Articolo 19 1
|
1. Le entità finanziarie segnalano gli gravi incidenti TIC all’autorità competente interessata di cui all’articolo 46 a norma del paragrafo 4 del presente articolo.
Se un’entità finanziaria è soggetta alla vigilanza di più di un’autorità nazionale competente di cui all’articolo 46, gli Stati membri designano un’unica autorità competente quale autorità competente interessata responsabile dell’espletamento delle funzioni e dei compiti di cui al presente articolo.
Gli enti creditizi classificati come significativi ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 4, del regolamento (UE) n. 1024/2013 segnalano i gravi incidenti TIC all’autorità nazionale competente designata ai sensi dell’articolo 4 della direttiva 2013/36/UE, che trasmette immediatamente tale segnalazione alla BCE.
Ai fini del primo comma, le entità finanziarie redigono, dopo aver raccolto e analizzato tutte le informazioni pertinenti, la notifica iniziale e le relazioni di cui al paragrafo 4 del presente articolo utilizzando i modelli di cui all’articolo 20 e le trasmettono all’autorità competente. Qualora un impedimento tecnico non consenta la trasmissione della notifica iniziale utilizzando il modello, le entità finanziarie informano in merito l’autorità competente con mezzi alternativi.
La notifica iniziale e le relazioni di cui al paragrafo 4 contengono tutte le informazioni necessarie all’autorità competente per determinare la rilevanza dell’grave incidente TIC e valutarne i possibili impatti transfrontalieri.
Fatta salva la segnalazione a norma del primo comma da parte dell’entità finanziaria all’autorità competente interessata, gli Stati membri possono stabilire, in aggiunta, che alcune o tutte le entità finanziarie forniscano altresì la notifica iniziale e ciascuna relazione di cui al paragrafo 4 del presente articolo utilizzando i modelli di cui all’articolo 20 alle autorità competenti o ai gruppi di intervento per la sicurezza informatica in caso di incidente (computer security incident response teams — CSIRT) designati o istituiti a norma della direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
Articolo 19 2
|
2. Le entità finanziarie possono, su base volontaria, notificare le minacce informatiche significative all’autorità competente interessata qualora ritengano che la minaccia sia rilevante per il sistema finanziario, gli utenti dei servizi o i clienti. L’autorità competente interessata può fornire tali informazioni alle altre autorità pertinenti di cui al paragrafo 6.
Gli enti creditizi classificati come significativi ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 4, del regolamento (UE) n. 1024/2013 possono notificare, su base volontaria, le minacce informatiche significative all’autorità nazionale competente, designata ai sensi dell’articolo 4 della direttiva 2013/36/UE, che trasmette immediatamente la notifica alla BCE.
Gli Stati membri possono stabilire che le entità finanziarie che procedono alla notifica su base volontaria e a norma del primo comma possano altresì trasmettere tale notifica ai CSIRT nazionali designati o istituiti a norma della direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
Articolo 19 3
|
3. Qualora si verifichi un grave incidente TIC che eserciti un impatto sugli interessi finanziari dei clienti, le entità finanziarie, senza indebito ritardo e non appena ne vengono a conoscenza, informano i loro clienti in merito a tale incidente e alle misure che sono state adottate per attenuare gli effetti avversi dell’incidente.
In caso di minaccia informatica significativa, le entità finanziarie, se del caso, informano i loro clienti potenzialmente interessati in merito alle opportune misure di protezione che i clienti stessi possono prendere in considerazione.
|
|
Articolo 19 4
|
4. Entro i termini da fissare a norma dell’articolo 20, primo comma, lettera a), punto ii), le entità finanziarie trasmettono all’autorità competente interessata:
|
a)
|
una notifica iniziale;
|
|
b)
|
una relazione intermedia dopo la notifica iniziale di cui alla lettera a), non appena lo stato originario dell’incidente cambia in maniera significativa o il trattamento dell’grave incidente TIC cambia alla luce delle nuove informazioni disponibili, seguita, a seconda dei casi, da notifiche aggiornate, ogni qualvolta sia disponibile un aggiornamento della situazione, nonché su specifica richiesta dell’autorità competente;
|
|
c)
|
una relazione finale, quando l’analisi delle cause che hanno dato origine all’incidente sia stata completata, indipendentemente dal fatto che le misure di attenuazione siano già state attuate, e quando al posto delle stime siano disponibili i dati dell’impatto effettivo.
|
|
|
Articolo 19 5
|
5. Ai sensi del presente articolo, le entità finanziarie possono esternalizzare, conformemente al diritto settoriale dell’Unione e nazionale, gli obblighi di segnalazione a un fornitore terzo di servizi. In caso di esternalizzazione, l’entità finanziaria rimane pienamente responsabile di espletare gli obblighi di segnalazione degli incidenti.
|
|
Articolo 19 6
|
6. Dopo aver ricevuto la notifica iniziale e ciascuna delle relazioni di cui al paragrafo 4, l’autorità competente trasmette tempestivamente i dettagli dell’grave incidente TIC ai seguenti destinatari sulla base, ove applicabile, delle rispettive competenze:
|
a)
|
all’ABE, all’ESMA o all’EIOPA;
|
|
b)
|
alla BCE, qualora siano coinvolte le entità finanziarie di cui all’articolo 2, paragrafo 1, lettere a), b) e d);
|
|
c)
|
alle autorità competenti, ai punti di contatto unici o ai CSIRT designati o istituiti conformemente alla direttiva (UE) 2022/2555;
|
|
d)
|
alle autorità di risoluzione di cui all’articolo 3 della direttiva 2014/59/UE e al Comitato di risoluzione unico (SRB) per quanto riguarda le entità di cui all’articolo 7, paragrafo 2, del regolamento (UE) n. 806/2014 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio (37) nonché le entità e i gruppi di cui all’articolo 7, paragrafo 4, lettera b), e all’articolo 7, paragrafo 5, del regolamento (UE) n. 806/2014, qualora tali dettagli riguardino incidenti che comportano un rischio per le funzioni essenziali definite all’articolo 2, paragrafo 1, punto 35), della direttiva 2014/59/UE; e
|
|
e)
|
ad altre pertinenti autorità pubbliche ai sensi del diritto nazionale.
|
|
|
Articolo 19 7
|
7. Una volta ricevute le informazioni conformemente al paragrafo 6, l’ABE, l’ESMA o l’EIOPA e la BCE, in consultazione con l’ENISA e in collaborazione con l’autorità competente interessata, valutano la pertinenza dell’grave incidente TIC rispetto alle autorità competenti in altri Stati membri. A seguito di tale valutazione, l’ABE, l’ESMA o l’EIOPA inviano una notifica al riguardo il prima possibile alle autorità competenti interessate in altri Stati membri. La BCE notifica i membri del Sistema europeo di banche centrali in merito a questioni afferenti il sistema di pagamenti. Sulla base di tale notifica, le autorità competenti adottano, se del caso, tutte le misure necessarie per proteggere l’immediata stabilità del sistema finanziario.
|
|
Articolo 19 8
|
8. La notifica che l’ESMA deve effettuare a norma del paragrafo 7 del presente articolo lascia impregiudicata la responsabilità dell’autorità competente di trasmettere urgentemente i dettagli dell’grave incidente TIC all’autorità pertinente dello Stato membro ospitante, laddove uno dei depositari centrali di titoli svolga una cospicua attività transfrontaliera nello Stato membro ospitante, laddove l’incidente grave connesso alle TIC possa comportare serie conseguenze per i mercati finanziari dello Stato membro ospitante e laddove vi siano accordi di cooperazione tra le autorità competenti in relazione alla vigilanza delle entità finanziarie.
|
,
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Standard correlati
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Standard correlati
Standard
| Fonte |
Requisito |
|
SCF
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan ∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan ∙ Incident log ∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program ∙ IR playbooks ∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program ∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring ∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR) ∙ IR retainer ∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
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 Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan ∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan ∙ Incident log ∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program ∙ IR playbooks ∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program ∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring ∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR) ∙ IR retainer ∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable: (1) Internal stakeholders; (2) Affected clients & third-parties; and (3) Regulatory authorities.
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.
|
|