+Articolo 31 Designazione dei fornitori terzi critici di servizi TIC
---+Articolo 31 1
---+Articolo 31 2
---+Articolo 31 3
---+Articolo 31 4
---+Articolo 31 5
---+Articolo 31 6
---+Articolo 31 7
---+Articolo 31 8
---+Articolo 31 9
---+Articolo 31 10
---+Articolo 31 11
---+Articolo 31 12
---+Articolo 31 13
|
Articolo 31 Designazione dei fornitori terzi critici di servizi TIC
-
1. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Regolamentazione |
|
Articolo 31 1
|
1. Le AEV, tramite il comitato congiunto e su raccomandazione del forum di sorveglianza istituito ai sensi dell’articolo 32, paragrafo 1:
|
a)
|
designano i fornitori terzi di servizi TIC che sono critici per le entità finanziarie, a seguito di una valutazione che tiene conto dei criteri di cui al paragrafo 2;
|
|
b)
|
nominano quale autorità di sorveglianza capofila di ciascun fornitore terzo critico di servizi TIC la AEV che è responsabile, a norma dei regolamenti (UE) n. 1093/2010, (UE) n. 1094/2010 o (UE) n. 1095/2010, delle entità finanziarie che possiedono complessivamente la quota maggiore delle attività totali rispetto al valore delle attività totali di tutte le entità finanziarie che utilizzano i servizi del pertinente fornitore terzo critico di servizi TIC, secondo quanto risulta dalla somma dei singoli bilanci di quelle entità finanziarie.
|
|
|
Articolo 31 2
|
2. La designazione di cui al paragrafo 1, lettera a), si fonda su tutti i criteri indicati di seguito in relazione ai servizi TIC prestati da un fornitore terzo di servizi TIC:
|
a)
|
l’impatto sistemico sulla stabilità, la continuità o la qualità della fornitura di servizi finanziari qualora il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC pertinente sia interessato da una disfunzione operativa su vasta scala che gli impedisca di fornire i suoi servizi, tenendo conto del numero di entità finanziarie e del valore totale delle attività delle entità finanziarie cui quel fornitore terzo di servizi TIC presta servizi;
|
|
b)
|
il carattere sistemico o l’importanza delle entità finanziarie che dipendono da quel fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, valutati in conformità dei parametri seguenti:
|
i)
|
il numero di enti a rilevanza sistemica a livello globale (G-SII) o di altri enti a rilevanza sistemica (O-SII) che dipendono dal rispettivo fornitore terzo di servizi TIC;
|
|
ii)
|
l’interdipendenza tra i G-SII o gli O-SII di cui al punto i) e altre entità finanziarie, comprese le situazioni in cui i G-SII o gli O-SII prestano servizi finanziari infrastrutturali ad altre entità finanziarie;
|
|
|
c)
|
la dipendenza delle entità finanziarie dai servizi prestati dal pertinente fornitore terzo di servizi TIC in rapporto alle funzioni essenziali o importanti delle entità finanziarie che in ultima analisi coinvolgono quel medesimo fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, indipendentemente dal fatto che le entità finanziarie dipendano da tali servizi direttamente o indirettamente, mediante accordi di subappalto;
|
|
d)
|
il grado di sostituibilità del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, prendendo in considerazione i parametri seguenti:
|
i)
|
la mancanza di alternative reali, anche parziali, dovuta al limitato numero di fornitori terzi di servizi TIC attivi su un mercato specifico, alla quota di mercato del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC in questione, o ancora alla complessità tecnica o al grado di sofisticazione, anche in relazione a eventuali tecnologie proprietarie, o alle caratteristiche specifiche dell’organizzazione o dell’attività del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC;
|
|
ii)
|
difficoltà inerenti alla migrazione, totale o parziale, dei dati e dei carichi di lavoro dal fornitore terzo di servizi TIC pertinente a un altro, a causa dei cospicui costi finanziari, del tempo o di altre risorse che possono essere necessarie per il processo di migrazione, oppure dei maggiori rischi informatici o di altri rischi operativi cui l’entità finanziaria può esporsi a causa di tale migrazione.
|
|
|
|
Articolo 31 3
|
3. Laddove il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC appartenga a un gruppo, i criteri di cui al paragrafo 2 sono presi in considerazione in relazione ai servizi TIC prestati dal gruppo nel suo insieme.
|
|
Articolo 31 4
|
4. I fornitori terzi critici di servizi TIC che fanno parte di un gruppo designano una persona giuridica come punto di coordinamento per garantire un’adeguata rappresentanza e la comunicazione con l’autorità di sorveglianza capofila.
|
|
Articolo 31 5
|
5. L’autorità di sorveglianza capofila informa il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC in merito all’esito della valutazione che ha portato alla designazione di cui al paragrafo 1, lettera a). Entro sei settimane dalla data della notifica, il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC può presentare all’autorità di sorveglianza capofila una dichiarazione motivata contenente tutte le informazioni pertinenti ai fini della valutazione. L’autorità di sorveglianza capofila esamina la dichiarazione motivata e può richiedere ulteriori informazioni da presentare entro 30 giorni di calendario dal ricevimento di detta dichiarazione.
Dopo aver designato un fornitore terzo di servizi TIC come critico, le AEV, tramite il comitato congiunto, notificano al fornitore terzo di servizi TIC tale designazione e la data di inizio a partire dalla quale sarà effettivamente soggetto ad attività di sorveglianza. La data di inizio è fissata a non più di un mese dall’avvenuta notifica. Il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC notifica alle entità finanziarie a cui presta servizi la propria designazione come critico.
|
|
Articolo 31 6
|
6. Alla Commissione è conferito il potere di adottare un atto delegato, conformemente all’articolo 57, per integrare il presente regolamento specificando ulteriormente i criteri di cui al paragrafo 2 del presente articolo, entro il 17 luglio 2024.
|
|
Articolo 31 7
|
7. Il meccanismo di designazione di cui al paragrafo 1, lettera a), non è utilizzato fino a quando la Commissione non abbia adottato un atto delegato in conformità del paragrafo 6.
|
|
Articolo 31 8
|
8. Il meccanismo di designazione di cui al paragrafo 1, lettera a), non si applica:
|
i)
|
alle entità finanziarie che forniscono servizi TIC ad altre entità finanziarie;
|
|
ii)
|
ai fornitori terzi di servizi TIC che sono soggetti a quadri di sorveglianza istituiti a supporto dei compiti di cui all’articolo 127, paragrafo 2, del trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione europea;
|
|
iii)
|
ai fornitori intragruppo di servizi TIC;
|
|
iv)
|
ai fornitori terzi di servizi TIC che prestano servizi TIC unicamente in uno Stato membro a entità finanziarie attive solo in tale Stato membro.
|
|
|
Articolo 31 9
|
9. Le AEV, tramite il comitato congiunto, redigono, pubblicano e aggiornano ogni anno l’elenco dei fornitori terzi critici di servizi TIC a livello di Unione.
|
|
Articolo 31 10
|
10. Ai fini del paragrafo 1, lettera a), le autorità competenti, con cadenza annuale e in forma aggregata, trasmettono le relazioni di cui all’articolo 28, paragrafo 3, terzo comma, al forum di sorveglianza istituito ai sensi dell’articolo 32. Il forum di sorveglianza valuta la dipendenza delle entità finanziarie da terzi nel settore delle TIC sulla base delle informazioni ricevute dalle autorità competenti.
|
|
Articolo 31 11
|
11. I fornitori terzi di servizi TIC che non sono inseriti nell’elenco di cui al paragrafo 9 possono chiedere di essere designati come critici conformemente al paragrafo 1, lettera a).
Ai fini del primo comma, il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC presenta una domanda motivata all’ABE, all’ESMA o all’EIOPA; queste ultime, tramite il comitato congiunto, decidono se designare tale fornitore terzo di servizi TIC come critico conformemente al paragrafo 1, lettera a).
La decisione di cui al secondo comma è adottata e notificata al fornitore terzo di servizi TIC entro sei mesi dalla data in cui è stata ricevuta la domanda.
|
|
Articolo 31 12
|
12. Le entità finanziarie ricorrono ai servizi di un fornitore terzo di servizi TIC stabilito in un paese terzo e che è stato designato come critico conformemente al paragrafo 1, lettera a), soltanto se detto fornitore ha istituito un’impresa figlia nell’Unione entro 12 mesi dalla designazione.
|
|
Articolo 31 13
|
13. Il fornitore terzo critico di servizi TIC di cui al paragrafo 12 notifica all’autorità di sorveglianza capofila eventuali cambiamenti nella struttura gestionale dell’impresa figlia istituita nell’Unione.
|
,
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Standard correlati
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Standard correlati
Standard
| Fonte |
Requisito |
|
SCF
|
Contacts With Authorities
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG) ∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators ∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership ∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts ∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts ∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC) ∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships ∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA) ∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation ∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators) ∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable) ∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols
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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained. ▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management 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.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained. ▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management 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.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained. ▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management 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.
|
|