+16 straipsnis Supaprastinta IRT rizikos valdymo sistema
---+16 straipsnis 1
---+16 straipsnis 2
---+16 straipsnis 3
|
16 straipsnis Supaprastinta IRT rizikos valdymo sistema
-
1. Apžvalga
| Pavadinimas |
Reguliavimas |
|
16 straipsnis 1
|
1. Šio reglamento 5–15 straipsniai netaikomi mažoms ir tarpusavio sąsajų neturinčioms investicinėms įmonėms, mokėjimo įstaigoms, kurioms taikoma išimtis pagal Direktyvą (ES) 2015/2366, įstaigoms, kurioms taikoma išimtis pagal Direktyvą 2013/36/ES ir kurioms valstybės narės nusprendė netaikyti šio reglamento 2 straipsnio 4 dalyje nurodytos galimybės, elektroninių pinigų įstaigoms, kurioms taikoma išimtis pagal Direktyvą 2009/110/EB ir mažoms profesinių pensijų įstaigoms.
Nedarant poveikio pirmai pastraipai subjektai, nurodyti pirmoje pastraipoje:
|
a)
|
nustato ir taiko patikimą ir dokumentais pagrįstą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, kurioje išsamiai apibūdinami mechanizmai ir priemonės, skirtos greitam, veiksmingam ir visapusiškam IRT rizikos valdymui, be kita ko, siekiant apsaugoti atitinkamus fizinius komponentus ir infrastruktūrą;
|
|
b)
|
vykdo nuolatinę visų IRT sistemų saugumo ir veikimo stebėseną;
|
|
c)
|
kuo labiau sumažina IRT rizikos poveikį naudodami patikimas, atsparias ir atnaujinamas IRT sistemas, protokolus ir priemones, kurie yra tinkami jų veiklos vykdymui ir paslaugų teikimui palaikyti ir tinkamai apsaugo tinklų ir informacinių sistemų duomenų prieinamumą, autentiškumą, vientisumą ir konfidencialumą;
|
|
d)
|
sudaro sąlygas tinklų ir informacinėse sistemose greitai nustatyti ir aptikti IRT rizikos šaltinius ir anomalijas ir skubiai pašalinti su IRT susijusius incidentus;
|
|
e)
|
nustato pagrindinę priklausomybę nuo IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių;
|
|
f)
|
užtikrina ypatingos svarbos arba svarbių funkcijų tęstinumą, vykdydami veiklos tęstinumo planus ir reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo priemones, kurios apima bent su atsarginėmis kopijomis susijusias ir atstatymo priemones;
|
|
g)
|
reguliariai testuoja f punkte nurodytus planus ir priemones, taip pat pagal a ir c punktus taikomos kontrolės veiksmingumą;
|
|
h)
|
atitinkamai įgyvendina atitinkamas su veikla susijusias išvadas, parengtas atlikus g punkte nurodytą testavimą ir analizę po incidento, plėtodami IRT rizikos vertinimo procesą ir, atsižvelgdami į poreikius ir IRT rizikos profilį, parengia IRT saugumo informavimo programas ir skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo mokymus darbuotojams ir vadovybei.
|
|
|
16 straipsnis 2
|
2. 1 dalies antros pastraipos a punkte nurodyta IRT rizikos valdymo sistema pagrindžiama dokumentais ir peržiūrima periodiškai ir įvykus dideliems su IRT susijusiems incidentams, laikantis priežiūros nurodymų. Ji nuolat tobulinama remiantis įgyvendinimo ir stebėsenos patirtimi. Kompetentingai institucijai paprašius, jai pateikiama IRT rizikos valdymo sistemos peržiūros ataskaita.
|
|
16 straipsnis 3
|
3. EPI Jungtiniame komitete, konsultuodamosi su ENISA, parengia bendrų techninių reguliavimo standartų projektus, kuriais siekiama:
|
a)
|
patikslinti elementus, kurie turi būti įtraukti į 1 dalies antros pastraipos a punkte nurodytą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą;
|
|
b)
|
patikslinti elementus, susijusius su sistemomis, protokolais ir priemonėmis, skirtais kuo labiau sumažinti IRT rizikos poveikį, kaip nurodyta 1 dalies antros pastraipos c punkte, siekiant užtikrinti tinklų saugumą, sudaryti sąlygas taikyti tinkamas apsaugos nuo įsibrovimo ir netinkamo duomenų naudojimo priemones ir išsaugoti duomenų prieinamumą, autentiškumą, vientisumą ir konfidencialumą;
|
|
c)
|
patikslinti 1 dalies antros pastraipos f punkte nurodytų IRT veiklos tęstinumo planų komponentus;
|
|
d)
|
patikslinti veiklos tęstinumo planų testavimo taisykles ir užtikrinti 1 dalies antros pastraipos g punkte nurodytų kontrolės priemonių veiksmingumą, bei užtikrinti, kad atliekant tokį testavimą būtų tinkamai atsižvelgiama į scenarijus, pagal kuriuos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos vykdymo kokybė suprastėja iki nepriimtino lygio arba yra nepatenkinama;
|
|
e)
|
patikslinti 2 dalyje nurodytos IRT rizikos valdymo sistemos peržiūros ataskaitos turinį ir formą.
|
Rengdamos tų techninių reguliavimo standartų projektus, EPI atsižvelgia į finansų sektoriaus subjekto dydį ir bendrą rizikos profilį, taip pat į jo paslaugų, veiklos ir operacijų pobūdį, mastą ir sudėtingumą.
EPI tuos techninių reguliavimo standartų projektus pateikia Komisijai ne vėliau kaip 2024 m. sausio 17 d.
Komisijai pagal reglamentų (ES) Nr. 1093/2010, (ES) Nr. 1094/2010 ir (ES) Nr. 1095/2010 10–14 straipsnius suteikiami įgaliojimai papildyti šį reglamentą priimant pirmoje pastraipoje nurodytus techninius reguliavimo standartus.
|
,
1.1 Nuorodos
1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai
1.3 Susiję standartai
2. Nustatyti reikalavimai
Reikalavimai
| Šaltinis |
Reikalavimas |
3. Susiję standartai
Standartai
| Šaltinis |
Reikalavimas |
|
SCF
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment
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) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment
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. ▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented. ▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. ▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures). ▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
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. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system. ▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis.
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 facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.
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
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
|
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery Policy
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) 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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR 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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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.
|
|
SCF
|
Continue Essential Mission & Business Functions
Description
Mechanisms exist to continue essential missions and business functions with little or no loss of operational continuity and sustain that continuity until full system restoration of primary processing and/or storage sites is performed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ Production TAASD support business-critical application and services failover. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners define Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) for business-critical TAASD. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners define Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) for business-critical TAASD.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 continue essential missions and business functions with little or no loss of operational continuity and sustain that continuity until full system restoration at primary processing and/or storage sites.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
|