+Artikolu 18 Klassifikazzjoni ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT u theddid ċibernetiku
---+Artikolu 18 1
---+Artikolu 18 2
---+Artikolu 18 3
---+Artikolu 18 4
|
Artikolu 18 Klassifikazzjoni ta’ inċidenti relatati mal-ICT u theddid ċibernetiku
-
1. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
Artikolu 18 1
|
1. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jikklassifikaw l-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT u għandhom jiddeterminaw l-impatt tagħhom abbażi tal-kriterji li ġejjin:
|
(a)
|
l-għadd u/jew ir-rilevanza tal-klijenti jew tal-kontropartijiet finanzjarji u, fejn applikabbli, l-ammont jew l-għadd ta’ tranżazzjonijiet affettwati mill-inċident relatat mal-ICT, u jekk l-inċident relatat mal-ICT ikkawżax impatt fuq ir-reputazzjoni;
|
|
(b)
|
iż-żmien kemm dam l-inċident relatat mal-ICT, inkluż kemm dam maqtugħ is-servizz;
|
|
(c)
|
il-firxa ġeografika fir-rigward taż-żoni affettwati mill-inċident relatat mal-ICT, partikularment jekk taffettwa aktar minn żewġ Stati Membri;
|
|
(d)
|
it-telf tad-data li jġib miegħu l-inċident relatat mal-ICT, fir-rigward tad-disponibbiltà, l-awtentiċità, l-integrità jew il-kunfidenzjalità tad-data;
|
|
(e)
|
il-kritikalità tas-servizzi affettwati, inklużi t-tranżazzjonijiet u l-operazzjonijiet tal-entità finanzjarja;
|
|
(f)
|
l-impatt ekonomiku, b’mod partikulari l-kostijiet u t-telf diretti u indiretti, tal-inċident relatat mal-ICT kemm f’termini assoluti kif ukoll relattivi.
|
|
|
Artikolu 18 2
|
2. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jikklassifikaw it-theddid ċibernetiku bħala sinifikanti abbażi tal-kritikalità tas-servizzi f’riskju, inkluż it-tranżazzjonijiet u l-operazzjonijiet tal-entità finanzjarja, l-għadd u/jew ir-rilevanza tal-klijenti jew tal-kontropartijiet finanzjarji fil-mira u l-firxa ġeografika taż-żoni f’riskju.
|
|
Artikolu 18 3
|
3. L-ASE għandhom, permezz tal-Kumitat Konġunt u b’konsultazzjoni mal-BĊE u l-ENISA, jiżviluppaw abbozzi ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji komuni li jispeċifikaw aktar dan li ġej:
|
(a)
|
il-kriterji li jinsabu fil-paragrafu 1, inkluż il-limiti ta’ materjalità għad-determinazzjoni ta’ inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT jew, jekk applikabbli, inċidenti kbar operazzjonali jew tas-sigurtà relatati ma’ pagamenti, li huma soġġetti għall-obbligu ta’ rapportar stabbilit fl-Artikolu 19(1);
|
|
(b)
|
il-kriterji li għandhom jiġu applikati mill-awtoritajiet kompetenti għall-finijiet tal-valutazzjoni tar-rilevanza ta’ inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT jew, kif xieraq, ta’ inċidenti kbar operazzjonali jew tas-sigurtà relatati ma’ pagamenti, għall-awtoritajiet kompetenti fi Stati Membri oħra, u d-dettalji tar-rapporti ta’ inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT jew, kif applikabbli, inċidenti kbar operazzjonali jew tas-sigurtà relatati ma’ pagamenti, li għandhom jiġu kondiviżi ma’ awtoritajiet kompetenti oħra skont l-Artikolu 19(6) u (7).
|
|
(c)
|
il-kriterji li jinsabu fil-paragrafu 2 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, inkluż livelli limitu għolja ta’ materjalità għad-determinazzjoni ta’ theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti.
|
|
|
Artikolu 18 4
|
4. Meta jiżviluppaw l-abbozzi ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji komuni msemmija fil-paragrafu 3 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, l-ASE għandhom iqisu l-kriterji stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 4(2), kif ukoll l-istandards, il-gwida u l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet internazzjonali żviluppati u ppubblikati mill-ENISA, inkluż, fejn xieraq, l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet għal setturi ekonomiċi oħra. Għall-finijiet tal-applikazzjoni tal-kriterji stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 4(2), l-ASE għandhom iqisu kif xieraq il-ħtieġa li l-mikrointrapriżi u l-intrapriżi żgħar u ta’ daqs medju jimmobilizzaw biżżejjed riżorsi u kapaċitajiet biex jiżguraw li l-inċidenti relatati mal-ICT jiġu ġestiti malajr.
L-ASE għandhom jippreżentaw dawk l-abbozzi ta’ standards tekniċi regolatorji komuni lill-Kummissjoni sas-17 ta’ Jannar 2024.
Il-Kummissjoni tingħata s-setgħa li tissupplimenta dan ir-Regolament billi tadotta l-istandards tekniċi regolatorji msemmija fil-paragrafu 3 f’konformità mal-Artikoli minn 10 sa 14 tar-Regolamenti (UE) Nru 1093/2010, (UE) Nru 1094/2010 u (UE) Nru 1095/2010.
|
,
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Standards relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Standards relatati
Standards
| Sors |
Rekwiżit |
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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.
|
|