+Artikolu 19 Ir-Rappurtar ta’ inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT u n-notifika volontarja ta’ theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti
---+Artikolu 19 1
---+Artikolu 19 2
---+Artikolu 19 3
---+Artikolu 19 4
---+Artikolu 19 5
---+Artikolu 19 6
---+Artikolu 19 7
---+Artikolu 19 8
|
Artikolu 19 Ir-Rappurtar ta’ inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT u n-notifika volontarja ta’ theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti
-
1. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
Artikolu 19 1
|
1. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jirrapportaw inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti kif imsemmi fl-Artikolu 46 f’konformità mal-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu.
Meta entità finanzjarja tkun soġġetta għal superviżjoni minn aktar minn awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali waħda msemmija fl-Artikolu 46, l-Istati Membri għandhom jiddeżinjaw awtorità kompetenti waħda bħala l-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti responsabbli biex twettaq il-funzjonijiet u d-dmirijiet previsti f’dan l-Artikolu.
L-istituzzjonijiet ta’ kreditu kklassifikati bħala sinifikanti, skont l-Artikolu 6(4) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1024/2013, għandhom jirrapportaw inċidenti kbar relatati mal-ICT lill-awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali rilevanti ddeżinjata skont l-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2013/36/UE, li għandha tibgħat immedjatament dak ir-rapport lill-BĊE.
Għall-fini tal-ewwel subparagrafu, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jipproduċu, wara li jiġbru u janalizzaw l-informazzjoni rilevanti kollha, in-notifika u r-rapporti inizjali msemmija fil-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu fuq il-mudelli msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 u jippreżentawhom lill-awtorità kompetenti. F’każ li jkun teknikament impossibbli li tintbagħat in-notifika inizjali fuq il-mudell, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jinnotifikaw lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti dwarha b’mezzi oħra.
In-notifika u r-rapporti inizjali msemmija fil-paragrafu 4 għandhom jinkludi l-informazzjoni kollha meħtieġa sabiex l-awtorità kompetenti tkun tista’ tiddetermina s-sinifikat tal-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u tivvaluta l-impatti transfruntiera possibbli.
Mingħajr preġudizzju għar-rappurtar skont l-ewwel subparagrafu mill-entità finanzjarja lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti, l-Istati Membri jistgħu, barra minn dan, jiddeterminaw li xi entitajiet finanzjarji, jew kollha, għandhom ukoll jipprovdu n-notifika inizjali u kull rapport imsemmi fil-paragrafu 4 ta’ dan l-Artikolu fuq il-mudelli msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti jew lill-Iskwadri ta’ Rispons għal Inċidenti relatati mas-Sigurtà tal-Kompjuters (CSIRTs) iddeżinjati jew stabbiliti f’konformità mad-Direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
Artikolu 19 2
|
2. L-entitajiet finanzjarji jistgħu, fuq bażi volontarja, jinnotifikaw theddidiet ċibernetiċi sinifikanti lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti meta jqisu li t-theddida tkun ta’ rilevanza għas-sistema finanzjarja, għall-utenti tas-servizzi jew għall-klijenti. L-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti tista’ tipprovdi tali informazzjoni lil awtoritajiet rilevanti oħra msemmija fil-paragrafu 6.
L-istituzzjonijiet ta’ kreditu kklassifikati bħala sinifikanti, skont l-Artikolu 6(4) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1024/2013, jistgħu, fuq bażi volontarja, jinnotifikaw theddid ċibernetiku sinifikanti lill-awtorità kompetenti nazzjonali rilevanti, iddeżinjata skont l-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2013/36/UE, li għandha tibgħat immedjatament dak ir-rapport lill-BĊE.
L-Istati Membri jistgħu jiddeterminaw li dawk l-entitajiet finanzjarji li, f’konformità mal-ewwel subparagrafu, jinnotifikaw fuq bażi volontarja, jistgħu jibagħtu wkoll dik in-notifika lis-CSIRTs iddeżinjati jew stabbiliti f’konformità mad-Direttiva (UE) 2022/2555.
|
|
Artikolu 19 3
|
3. Meta jseħħ inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u dan ikollu impatt fuq l-interessi finanzjarji tal-klijenti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, mingħajr dewmien żejjed malli jindunaw bih, jinformaw lill-klijenti tagħhom dwar l-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT u dwar il-miżuri li jkunu ttieħdu biex itaffu l-effetti negattivi ta’ inċident bħal dak.
Fil-każ ta’ theddida ċibernetika sinifikanti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, fejn applikabbli, jinformaw lill-klijenti tagħhom li potenzjalment ġew affettwati dwar kwalunkwe miżura ta’ protezzjoni xierqa li jistgħu jikkunsidraw li jieħdu bħala klijenti.
|
|
Artikolu 19 4
|
4. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, fil-limiti ta’ żmien li jiġu stabbiliti f’konformità mal-Artikolu 20, l-ewwel paragrafu, il-punt (a), il-punt (ii), jippreżentaw dan li ġej lill-awtorità kompetenti rilevanti:
|
(b)
|
rapport intermedju wara n-notifika inizjali msemmija fil-punt (a), hekk kif l-istatus tal-inċident oriġinali jkun inbidel b’mod sinifikanti jew it-trattament tal-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT ikun inbidel abbażi tal-informazzjoni ġdida disponibbli, segwit, kif xieraq, minn notifiki aġġornati kull darba li jkun disponibbli aġġornament rilevanti tal-istatus, kif ukoll fuq talba speċifika tal-awtorità kompetenti;
|
|
(c)
|
rapport finali, meta l-analiżi tal-kawża ewlenija tkun tlestiet, irrispettivament minn jekk il-miżuri ta’ mitigazzjoni jkunux diġà ġew implimentati, u meta ċ-ċifri tal-impatt attwali jkunu disponibbli biex jissostitwixxu l-estimi.
|
|
|
Artikolu 19 5
|
5. L-entitajiet finanzjarji jistgħu jesternalizzaw, skont il-liġi settorjali tal-Unjoni u dik nazzjonali, l-obbligi ta’ rappurtar skont dan l-Artikolu lil fornitur terz ta’ servizz. Fil-każ ta’ esternalizzazzjoni bħal din, l-entità finanzjarja tibqa’ terfa’ r-responsabbiltà sħiħa li tissodisfa r-rekwiżiti dwar ir-rappurtar tal-inċident.
|
|
Artikolu 19 6
|
6. Mal-wasla tan-notifika inizjali u ta’ kull rapport imsemmi fil-paragrafu 4, l-awtorità kompetenti għandha, fi żmien xieraq, tagħti d-dettalji dwar l-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT lir-riċevituri li ġejjin, abbażi, kif inhu applikabbli, tal-kompetenzi rispettivi tagħhom:
|
(a)
|
l-EBA, l-ESMA jew l-EIOPA;
|
|
(b)
|
il-BĊE, fil-każ ta’ entitajiet finanzjarji msemmija fl-Artikolu 2(1), il-punti (a), (b) u (c);
|
|
(c)
|
l-awtoritajiet kompetenti, il-punti uniċi ta’ kuntatt jew CSIRTs iddeżinjati jew stabbiliti, rispettivament, f’konformità mad-Direttiva (UE) 2022/2555;
|
|
(d)
|
l-awtoritajiet ta’ riżoluzzjoni, kif imsemmija fl-Artikolu 3 tad-Direttiva 2014/59/UE, u l-Bord Uniku ta’ Riżoluzzjoni fir-rigward tal-entitajiet imsemmija fl-Artikolu 7(2) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 806/2014 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill (37), u fir-rigward tal-entitajiet u l-gruppi msemmija fl-Artikolu 7(4)(b) u (5) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 806/2014 jekk tali dettalji jikkonċernaw inċidenti li joħolqu riskju għall-iżgurar ta’ funzjonijiet kritiċi skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 2(1), il-punt (35), tad-Direttiva 2014/59/UE; u
|
|
(e)
|
awtoritajiet pubbliċi rilevanti oħra skont il-liġi nazzjonali.
|
|
|
Artikolu 19 7
|
7. Wara l-wasla tal-informazzjoni f’konformità mal-paragrafu 6, l-EBA, l-ESMA jew l-EIOPA u l-BĊE, f’konsultazzjoni mal-ENISA u f’kooperazzjoni mal-awtorità nazzjonali kompetenti, għandhom jivvalutaw jekk l-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT huwiex rilevanti għall-awtoritajiet kompetenti fi Stati Membri oħra. Wara dik il-valutazzjoni, l-EBA, l-ESMA jew l-EIOPA għandhom, mill-aktar fis possibbli, jinnotifikaw lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti rilevanti fi Stati Membri oħra kif xieraq. Il-BĊE għandu jinnotifika lill-membri tas-Sistema Ewropea ta’ Banek Ċentrali dwar kwistjonijiet rilevanti għas-sistema ta’ pagament. Abbażi ta’ dik in-notifika, l-awtoritajiet kompetenti għandhom, fejn xieraq, jieħdu l-miżuri kollha meħtieġa biex jipproteġu l-istabbiltà immedjata tas-sistema finanzjarja.
|
|
Artikolu 19 8
|
(8) In-notifika li għandha ssir mill-ESMA skont il-paragrafu 7 ta’ dan l-Artikolu għandha tkun mingħajr preġudizzju għar-responsabbiltà tal-awtorità kompetenti li tibgħat b’mod urġenti d-dettalji tal-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT lill-awtorità rilevanti fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, fejn depożitorju ċentrali tat-titoli jkollu attività transfruntiera sinifikanti fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, l-inċident kbir relatat mal-ICT x’aktarx li jkollu konsegwenzi serji għas-swieq finanzjarji tal-Istat Membru ospitanti u fejn ikun hemm arranġamenti ta’ kooperazzjoni bejn l-awtoritajiet kompetenti relatati mas-superviżjoni tal-entitajiet finanzjarji.
|
,
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Standards relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Standards relatati
Standards
| Sors |
Rekwiżit |
|
SCF
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
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 Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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.
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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
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.
|
|