+Artikolu 98 Standards tekniċi regolatorji dwar l-awtentikazzjoni u l-komunikazzjoni
---+Artikolu 98 1.
---+Artikolu 98 2.
---+Artikolu 98 3.
---+Artikolu 98 4.
---+Artikolu 98 5.

Artikolu 98 Standards tekniċi regolatorji dwar l-awtentikazzjoni u l-komunikazzjoni

-

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

,
Titlu Regolamentazzjoni
Artikolu 98 1.

L-EBA għandha, f’kooperazzjoni mill-qrib mal-BĊE u wara li tikkonsulta l-partijiet ikkonċernati rilevanti kollha, inkluż dawk fis-suq tas-servizzi ta’ pagament, li jirriflettu l-interessi kollha involuti, għandha tiżviluppa abbozz ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji indirizzati lill-fornituri ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament kif stipulat fl-Artikolu 1(1) ta’ din id-Direttiva skont l-Artikolu 10 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1093/2010 li jispeċifika:

(a) 

ir-rekwiżiti tal-awtentikazzjoni serja tal-klijent imsemmija fl-Artikolu 97(1) u (2);

(b) 

l-eżenzjonijiet mill-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 97(1), (2) u (3), abbażi tal-kriterji stabbiliti fil-paragrafu 3 ta’ dan l-Artikolu;

(c) 

ir-rekwiżiti li jridu jikkonformaw magħhom il-miżuri ta’ sigurtà skont l-Artikolu 97(3), sabiex jiġu protetti l-kunfidenzjalità u l-integrità tal-kredenzjali personalizzati ta’ sigurtà tal-utenti tas-servizzi ta’ pagament; u

(d) 

ir-rekwiżiti għal standards miftuħin ta’ komunikazzjoni li jkunu komuni u sikuri għall-iskop ta’ identifikazzjoni, awtentikazzjoni, notifika, u informazzjoni, kif ukoll għall-implimentazzjoni ta’ miżuri ta’ sigurtà, bejn fornituri ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament li jġestixxu l-kont, fornituri ta’ servizzi ta’ bidu ta’ pagament, fornituri ta’ servizzi ta’ informazzjoni dwar il-kontijiet, pagaturi, benefiċjarji u fornituri oħra ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament.

Artikolu 98 2.

L-abbozz ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji msemmi fil-paragrafu 1 għandu jiġi żviluppat mill-EBA sabiex:

(a) 

jiġi żgurat livell adatt ta’ sigurtà għall-utenti ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament u fornituri ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament, permezz tal-adozzjoni ta’ rekwiżiti effettivi u bbażati fuq ir-riskju;

(b) 

tiġi żgurata s-sikurezza tal-fondi u d-data personali tal-utenti ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament;

(c) 

tiġi żgurata u tinżamm kompetizzjoni ġusta fost il-fornituri kollha ta’ servizzi ta’ pagament;

(d) 

tiġi żgurata n-newtralità mil-lat tat-teknoloġija u tal-mudell tan-negozju;

(e) 

biex ikun possibbli l-iżvilupp ta’ mezzi ta’ pagament favorevoli għall-utent, aċċessibbli u innovattivi.

Artikolu 98 3.

L-eżenzjonijiet imsemmija fil-punt (b) tal-paragrafu 1 għandhom ikunu bbażati fuq il-kriterji li ġejjin:

(a) 

il-livell ta’ riskju involut fis-servizz provdut;

(b) 

l-ammont, ir-rikorrenza tat-tranżazzjoni, jew it-tnejn li huma;

(c) 

il-mezz ta’ pagament użat għall-esekuzzjoni tat-tranżazzjoni.

Artikolu 98 4.
L-EBA għandha tippreżenta dak l-abbozz ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji msemmi fil-paragrafu 1 lill-Kummissjoni sat-13 ta’ Jannar 2017.

Is-setgħa hija ddelegata lill-Kummissjoni biex tadotta l-istandards tekniċi regolatorji msemmija fl-ewwel subparagrafu f’konformità mal-Artikoli 10 sa 14 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1093/2010.

Artikolu 98 5.
F'konformità mal-Artikolu 10 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1093/2010, l-EBA għandha tirrieżamina u, jekk ikun xieraq, taġġorna l-istandards tekniċi regolatorji fuq bażi regolari sabiex, fost affarijiet oħra, tqis l-innovazzjoni u l-iżviluppi teknoloġiċi, kif ukoll id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Kapitolu II tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554.

1.1 Referenzi

1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati

1.3 Standards relatati

2. Rekwiżiti identifikati

Rekwiżiti
Sors Rekwiżit

3. Standards relatati

Standards
Sors Rekwiżit
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.