+Risk Management Policy

Risk Management Policy

Description

Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented risk management policy that:
(1) Conveys executive management's intent;
(2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors;
(3) Is reviewed at least annually; and
(4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Documented annual policy review with version control

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow
∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history
∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting

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

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk 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

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).

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

Titolo Standard

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 6 1

1.   Nell’ambito del sistema di gestione globale del rischio, le entità finanziarie predispongono un quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici solido, esaustivo e adeguatamente documentato, che consenta loro di affrontare i rischi informatici in maniera rapida, efficiente ed esaustiva, assicurando un elevato livello di resilienza operativa digitale.

EULAW Articolo 6 2

2.   Il quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici comprende almeno strategie, politiche, procedure, protocolli e strumenti in materia di TIC necessari per proteggere debitamente e adeguatamente tutti i patrimoni informativi e i risorse TIC, compresi software, hardware e server, nonché tutte le pertinenti infrastrutture e componenti fisiche, quali i locali, i centri di elaborazione dati e le aree designate come sensibili, così da garantire che tutti i patrimoni informativi e i risorse TIC siano adeguatamente protetti contro i rischi, compresi i danneggiamenti e l’accesso o l’uso non autorizzati.

EULAW Articolo 6 3

3.   Conformemente al proprio quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici, le entità finanziarie riducono al minimo l’impatto dei rischi informatici applicando strategie, politiche, procedure, protocolli e strumenti in materia di TIC adeguati. Forniscono alle autorità competenti, su richiesta di queste ultime, informazioni complete e aggiornate sui rischi informatici e sul proprio quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici.

EULAW Articolo 6 4

4.   Le entità finanziarie diverse dalle microimprese attribuiscono la responsabilità della gestione e della sorveglianza dei rischi informatici a una funzione di controllo, di cui assicurano un livello appropriato d’indipendenza per evitare conflitti d’interessi. Le entità finanziarie garantiscono un’opportuna separazione e indipendenza tra funzioni di gestione dei rischi informatici, funzioni di controllo e funzioni di audit interno, secondo il modello delle tre linee di difesa o secondo un modello interno di controllo e gestione del rischio.

EULAW Articolo 6 5

5.   Il quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici è documentato e riesaminato almeno una volta all’anno, o periodicamente in caso di microimprese, nonché in occasione di gravi incidenti TIC e in seguito a indicazioni o conclusioni delle autorità di vigilanza formulate a seguito di pertinenti test di resilienza operativa digitale o di processi di audit. Il quadro è costantemente migliorato sulla base degli insegnamenti tratti dall’attuazione e dal monitoraggio. È presentata all’autorità competente, su sua richiesta, una relazione in merito al riesame del quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici.

EULAW Articolo 6 6

6.   Il quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici delle entità finanziarie, diverse dalle microimprese, è sottoposto periodicamente a verifiche di audit interne effettuate da addetti all’audit in linea con i piani di audit delle entità finanziarie. Tali addetti all’audit possiedono conoscenze, competenze ed esperienze adeguate in materia di rischi informatici, nonché un’adeguata indipendenza. La frequenza e l’oggetto delle verifiche di audit in materia di TIC sono commisurati ai rischi connessi alle TIC cui è esposta l’entità finanziaria.

EULAW Articolo 6 7

7.   Sulla base delle conclusioni dell’audit interno in materia di TIC, le entità finanziarie istituiscono un procedimento formale per darvi seguito, comprendente regole per la verifica tempestiva delle risultanze critiche e l’adozione di rimedi.

EULAW Articolo 6 8

8.   Il quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici comprende una strategia di resilienza operativa digitale che definisce le modalità di attuazione del quadro. A tal fine, la strategia di resilienza operativa digitale include metodi per affrontare i rischi informatici e conseguire specifici obiettivi in materia di TIC:

a)

spiegando in che modo il quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici sostiene gli obiettivi e la strategia commerciale dell’entità finanziaria;

b)

fissando il livello di tolleranza per i rischi informatici, conformemente alla propensione al rischio dell’entità finanziaria e analizzando la tolleranza d’impatto per le perturbazioni a livello di TIC;

c)

indicando chiari obiettivi in materia di sicurezza delle informazioni, compresi indicatori chiave di prestazione e parametri chiave di rischio;

d)

spiegando l’architettura di riferimento a livello di TIC e le eventuali modifiche necessarie per conseguire specifici obiettivi commerciali;

e)

delineando i differenti meccanismi introdotti per individuare incidenti connessi alle TIC, prevenire il loro impatto e proteggersi dallo stesso;

f)

documentando l’attuale situazione di resilienza operativa digitale sulla base del numero di gravi incidenti TIC segnalati, nonché l’efficacia delle misure preventive;

g)

attuando test di resilienza operativa digitale, conformemente al capo IV del presente regolamento;

h)

delineando una strategia di comunicazione in caso di incidenti connessi alle TIC di cui è richiesta la divulgazione a norma dell’articolo 14.

EULAW Articolo 6 9

9.   Le entità finanziarie possono, nel contesto della strategia di resilienza operativa digitale di cui al paragrafo 8, definire una strategia olistica per le TIC a livello di gruppo o di entità, basata su una varietà di fornitori, che indichi le principali dipendenze da fornitori terzi di servizi TIC e che spieghi la logica sottesa alla ripartizione degli appalti tra i fornitori terzi di servizi TIC.

EULAW Articolo 6 10

10.   Le entità finanziarie possono, conformemente alla normativa settoriale dell’Unione e nazionale, esternalizzare a imprese interne o esterne al gruppo i compiti di verifica della conformità ai requisiti in materia di gestione dei rischi informatici. In caso di esternalizzazione, l’entità finanziaria rimane pienamente responsabile di verificare la conformità ai requisiti in materia di gestione dei rischi informatici.

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 32 Sicurezza del trattamento
-
EULAW Articolo 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-

Ticket collegati

Collegamenti
Tipo di collegamento Ticket
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
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 Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-07.01B
is blocked by RSK-01 Risk Management Policy – Assessment Procedure
blocks GV GOVERN
blocks GV.PO-02 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and …
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.