+Risk Tolerance
|
Risk Tolerance
Description
Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
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. Pārskats
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie tiesību akti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie tiesību akti
Tiesību akti
| Avots |
Regulējums |
|
EULAW
|
3. pants IKT riska pārvaldība
3. pants
Finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno IKT riska pārvaldības politiku un procedūras, kas ietver visus no šiem elementiem:
a)
norāde par riska tolerances līmeņa IKT riskam, kas noteikts saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 6. panta 8. punkta b) apakšpunktu, apstiprināšanu;
b)
procedūra un metodika IKT riska novērtējuma veikšanai, norādot:
i)
ievainojamību un apdraudējumus, kas ietekmē vai var ietekmēt atbalstītās darbības funkcijas, IKT sistēmas un IKT aktīvus, kas atbalsta šīs funkcijas;
ii)
kvantitatīvos vai kvalitatīvos rādītājus i) apakšpunktā minētās ievainojamības un apdraudējumu ietekmes un varbūtības novērtēšanai;
c)
procedūra, ko izmanto, lai noteiktu, īstenotu un dokumentētu IKT riska risinājumu pasākumus attiecībā uz identificētajiem un novērtētajiem IKT riskiem, tajā skaitā noteiktu IKT riska risinājumu pasākumus, kas nepieciešami, lai panāktu, ka IKT risks atbilst a) punktā minētajam riska tolerances līmenim;
d)
attiecībā uz atlikušajiem IKT riskiem, kas joprojām pastāv pēc c) punktā minēto IKT riska risinājumu pasākumu īstenošanas:
i)
noteikumi par šo atlikušo IKT risku identificēšanu;
ii)
uzdevumu un atbildības noteikšana attiecībā uz:
1)
to atlikušo IKT risku pieņemšanu, kuri pārsniedz a) punktā minēto finanšu vienības riska tolerances līmeni;
2)
pārskatīšanas procesu, kas minēts šā d) punkta iv) apakšpunktā;
iii)
pieņemto atlikušo IKT risku inventarizācijas izstrāde, ietverot pamatojumu to pieņemšanai;
iv)
noteikumi par pieņemto atlikušo IKT risku pārskatīšanu vismaz reizi gadā, ietverot:
1)
norādi par jebkādām atlikušo IKT risku izmaiņām;
2)
pieejamo risku mazināšanas pasākumu novērtējumu;
3)
novērtējumu par to, vai iemesli, kas pamato atlikušo IKT risku pieņemšanu, joprojām ir spēkā un piemērojami pārskatīšanas datumā;
e)
noteikumi par to, kā uzrauga:
i)
jebkādas izmaiņas IKT risku un kiberdraudu vidē;
ii)
iekšējo un ārējo ievainojamību un apdraudējumus;
iii)
finanšu vienības IKT risku, lai varētu ātri atklāt izmaiņas, kas varētu ietekmēt tās IKT riska profilu;
f)
noteikumi par procesu, ar kuru nodrošina, ka tiek ņemtas vērā jebkādas izmaiņas finanšu vienības darbības stratēģijā un digitālās darbības noturības stratēģijā.
Pirmās daļas c) punkta nolūkos minētajā punktā norādītā procedūra nodrošina:
a)
īstenoto IKT riska risinājuma pasākumu efektivitātes uzraudzību;
b)
novērtējumu par to, vai ir sasniegti finanšu vienības noteiktie riska tolerances līmeņi;
c)
novērtējumu par to, vai finanšu vienība ir veikusi darbības, lai vajadzības gadījumā koriģētu vai uzlabotu minētos pasākumus.
|
|
EULAW
|
27. pants Ziņojuma par IKT riska pārvaldības sistēmas pārskatīšanu formāts un saturs
-
|
Saistītie uzdevumi
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|