+98. pants Regulatīvie tehniskie standarti attiecībā uz autentificēšanu un saziņu
---+98. pants 1.
---+98. pants 2.
---+98. pants 3.
---+98. pants 4.
---+98. pants 5.

98. pants Regulatīvie tehniskie standarti attiecībā uz autentificēšanu un saziņu

-

1. Pārskats

,
98. pants 1.

EBI ciešā sadarbībā ar ECB un pēc apspriešanās ar visām ieinteresētajām personām, tostarp maksājumu pakalpojumu tirgū, atspoguļojot visas iesaistīto intereses, izstrādā maksājumu pakalpojumu sniedzējiem paredzētu regulatīvo tehnisko standartu projektu, kā izklāstīts šīs direktīvas 1. panta 1. punktā saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010 10. pantu, kurā precizē:

a) 

direktīvas 97. panta 1. un 2. punktā minētās drošas klienta autentificēšanas prasības;

b) 

atbrīvojumus no 97. panta 1., 2. un 3. punkta piemērošanas, pamatojoties uz kritērijiem, kas noteikti šā panta 3. punktā;

c) 

prasības, kurām jāatbilst drošības pasākumiem saskaņā ar 97. panta 3. punktu, lai aizsargātu maksājumu pakalpojumu lietotāju personalizēto drošības datu konfidencialitāti un integritāti; un

d) 

prasības attiecībā uz vienotiem un drošiem atklātiem saziņas standartiem identifikācijas, autentificēšanas, paziņošanas un informēšanas nolūkos, kā arī attiecībā uz drošības pasākumu īstenošanu starp kontu apkalpojošajiem maksājumu pakalpojumu sniedzējiem, maksājumu iniciēšanas pakalpojumu sniedzējiem, konta informācijas pakalpojumu sniedzējiem, maksātājiem, maksājumu saņēmējiem un citiem maksājumu pakalpojumu sniedzējiem.
98. pants 2.

Regulatīvo tehnisko standartu projektu, kas minēts 1. punktā, izstrādā EBI, lai:

a) 

nodrošinātu pienācīgu drošības līmeni maksājumu pakalpojumu lietotājiem un maksājumu pakalpojumu sniedzējiem, pieņemot efektīvas un uz risku balstītas prasības;

b) 

nodrošinātu maksājumu pakalpojumu lietotāju naudas līdzekļu un personas datu drošību;

c) 

nodrošinātu un saglabātu godīgu konkurenci starp visiem maksājumu pakalpojumu sniedzējiem;

d) 

nodrošinātu tehnoloģiju un darījumdarbības modeļu neitralitāti;

e) 

ļautu izstrādāt lietotājdraudzīgus, pieejamus un inovatīvus maksāšanas līdzekļus.
98. pants 3.

Šā panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktā minēto atbrīvojumu pamatā ir šādi kritēriji:

a) 

ar sniegto pakalpojumu saistītā riska līmenis;

b) 

darījuma summa, atkārtošanās vai abas;

c) 

darījuma izpildei izmantotais maksājumu kanāls.
98. pants 4.
EBI iesniedz minēto regulatīvo tehnisko standartu projektu, kas minēts 1. punktā, Komisijai līdz 2017. gada 13. janvārim.

Komisijai deleģē pilnvaras pieņemt minētos regulatīvos tehniskos standartus saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010 10.–14. pantu.
98. pants 5.
EBI saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010 10. pantu regulāri pārskata un vajadzības gadījumā atjaunina regulatīvos tehniskos standartus, lai cita starpā ņemtu vērā inovāciju un tehnoloģiju attīstību un Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 II nodaļas noteikumus.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
SCF Secure Practices Alignment Justification

Description

Mechanisms exist to align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Informal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.

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

∙ Formal alignment with NIST CSF 2.0, SCF CORE Fundamentals, CIS Controls or another framework that meets the organization's needs.
∙ Gap analysis documentation
∙ Written justification for framework choices.

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Documented gap analysis and justification
∙ GRC platform alignment reports (e.g., SCFConnect)

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ Regulatory mapping evidence packages
∙ GRC platform with framework comparison reporting

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

∙ Formal alignment to a framework or metaframework capable of addressing security, compliance and resilience needs.
∙ External auditor validation
∙ Board-level reporting on framework compliance
∙ GRC platform with automated framework mapping

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.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ 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.

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).

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 align the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) with one or more industry-recognized frameworks that:
(1) Support external scrutiny; and
(2) Provide defensible justification for secure practices.

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.