+Risk Assessment
---+Instances Requiring A Risk Assessment
---+Risk Assessment Update
---+Risk Assessment Stakeholder Involvement

Risk Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Risk assessment
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

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 conduct recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's TAASD.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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.

1. Overzicht

Instances Requiring A Risk Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to define instances that require a risk assessment to be performed.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document how supply chain risks are identified

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

∙ Supply chain risk assessment process and checklist

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

∙ Formal supply chain risk management program
∙ Vendor risk assessments

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

∙ Enterprise supply chain risk management (SCRM) program

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

∙ Enterprise SCRM platform (e.g., BitSight, OneTrust)
∙ Automated supply chain risk monitoring
∙ C-SCRM program

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 instances that require a risk assessment to be performed.

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.
Risk Assessment Update

Description

Mechanisms exist to routinely update risk assessments and react accordingly upon identifying new security vulnerabilities, including using outside sources for security vulnerability information.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

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 routinely update risk assessments and react accordingly upon identifying new security vulnerabilities, including using outside sources for security vulnerability information.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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.
Risk Assessment Stakeholder Involvement

Description

Mechanisms exist to:
(1) Define applicable stakeholders for each risk assessment;
(2) Involve identified stakeholders in the risk assessment process; and
(3) Provide identified stakeholders with results of the risk assessment, upon completion.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Consider international risks when operating cross-border

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

∙ International risk assessment for cross-border operations

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

∙ Formal international risk assessment program
∙ Country-specific risk profiles

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

∙ Enterprise international risk management program
∙ Country risk monitoring

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

∙ Enterprise global risk management platform
∙ Automated country risk monitoring
∙ Geopolitical risk intelligence integration

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

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:
(1) Define applicable stakeholders for each risk assessment;
(2) Involve identified stakeholders in the risk assessment process; and
(3) Provide identified stakeholders with results of the risk assessment, upon completion.

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.

1.1 Referenties

1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen

1.3 Gerelateerde regelingen

2. Geïdentificeerde eisen

Eisen

3. Gerelateerde regelingen

Regelingen
EULAW Artikel 9 Systeem voor risicobeheer
-
EULAW Artikel 3 ICT-risicobeheersing

Artikel 3

ICT-risicobeheersing

Financiële entiteiten ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren beleidslijnen en procedures voor ICT-beveiliging die alle volgende elementen bevatten:

a) 

een vermelding van de goedkeuring van het ICT-risicotolerantieniveau dat is vastgesteld overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 8, punt b), van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554;

b) 

een procedure en methode om de ICT-risicobeoordeling te maken, ten behoeve van de identificatie van:

i) 

kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen die van invloed zijn of kunnen zijn op de ondersteunde bedrijfsfuncties, de ICT-systemen en ICT-assets die deze functies ondersteunen;

ii) 

de kwantitatieve of kwalitatieve indicatoren om de impact en de waarschijnlijkheid van de in punt i) bedoelde kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen te meten;

c) 

de procedure om maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling te identificeren, te implementeren en te documenteren voor de in kaart gebrachte en beoordeelde ICT-risico’s, met inbegrip van het vaststellen van maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling die noodzakelijk zijn om het ICT-risico binnen het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau te brengen;

d) 

voor de ICT-restrisico’s die na de implementatie van de in punt c) bedoelde maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling nog aanwezig zijn:

i) 

bepalingen voor het in kaart brengen van die ICT-restrisico’s;

ii) 

de toewijzing van rollen en verantwoordelijkheden wat betreft:

1) 

de acceptatie van de ICT-restrisico’s die het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau van de financiële entiteit overschrijden;

2) 

het in punt d), iv), bedoelde evaluatieproces;

iii) 

het uitwerken van een inventaris van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van een verantwoording voor het accepteren van die risico’s;

iv) 

bepalingen betreffende de ten minste jaarlijks uit te voeren evaluatie van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van:

1) 

het in kaart brengen van veranderingen in de ICT-restrisico’s;

2) 

de beoordeling van beschikbare mitigerende maatregelen;

3) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de redenen om de ICT-restrisico’s te accepteren, nog steeds gelden en van toepassing zijn op de datum van de evaluatie;

e) 

bepalingen voor het monitoren van:

i) 

veranderingen in het landschap van ICT-risico en cyberdreigingen;

ii) 

interne en externe kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen;

iii) 

ICT-risico van de financiële entiteit waardoor veranderingen die haar ICT-risicoprofiel kunnen beïnvloeden, snel kunnen worden gedetecteerd;

f) 

bepalingen over een proces waarmee veranderingen in de bedrijfsstrategie en de strategie voor digitale weerbaarheid van de financiële entiteit in aanmerking worden genomen.

Voor de toepassing van punt c) van het eerste lid zorgt de in dat punt bedoelde procedure voor:

a) 

de monitoring van de doeltreffendheid van de geïmplementeerde maatregel voor ICT-risicobehandeling;

b) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de vastgestelde risicotolerantieniveaus van de financiële entiteit zijn bereikt;

c) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de financiële entiteit acties heeft ondernemen om die maatregelen zo nodig te corrigeren of te verbeteren.
EULAW Artikel 3 ICT-risicobeheersing

Artikel 3

ICT-risicobeheersing

Financiële entiteiten ontwikkelen, documenteren en implementeren beleidslijnen en procedures voor ICT-beveiliging die alle volgende elementen bevatten:

a) 

een vermelding van de goedkeuring van het ICT-risicotolerantieniveau dat is vastgesteld overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 8, punt b), van Verordening (EU) 2022/2554;

b) 

een procedure en methode om de ICT-risicobeoordeling te maken, ten behoeve van de identificatie van:

i) 

kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen die van invloed zijn of kunnen zijn op de ondersteunde bedrijfsfuncties, de ICT-systemen en ICT-assets die deze functies ondersteunen;

ii) 

de kwantitatieve of kwalitatieve indicatoren om de impact en de waarschijnlijkheid van de in punt i) bedoelde kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen te meten;

c) 

de procedure om maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling te identificeren, te implementeren en te documenteren voor de in kaart gebrachte en beoordeelde ICT-risico’s, met inbegrip van het vaststellen van maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling die noodzakelijk zijn om het ICT-risico binnen het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau te brengen;

d) 

voor de ICT-restrisico’s die na de implementatie van de in punt c) bedoelde maatregelen voor ICT-risicobehandeling nog aanwezig zijn:

i) 

bepalingen voor het in kaart brengen van die ICT-restrisico’s;

ii) 

de toewijzing van rollen en verantwoordelijkheden wat betreft:

1) 

de acceptatie van de ICT-restrisico’s die het in punt a) bedoelde risicotolerantieniveau van de financiële entiteit overschrijden;

2) 

het in punt d), iv), bedoelde evaluatieproces;

iii) 

het uitwerken van een inventaris van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van een verantwoording voor het accepteren van die risico’s;

iv) 

bepalingen betreffende de ten minste jaarlijks uit te voeren evaluatie van de geaccepteerde ICT-restrisico’s, met inbegrip van:

1) 

het in kaart brengen van veranderingen in de ICT-restrisico’s;

2) 

de beoordeling van beschikbare mitigerende maatregelen;

3) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de redenen om de ICT-restrisico’s te accepteren, nog steeds gelden en van toepassing zijn op de datum van de evaluatie;

e) 

bepalingen voor het monitoren van:

i) 

veranderingen in het landschap van ICT-risico en cyberdreigingen;

ii) 

interne en externe kwetsbaarheden en dreigingen;

iii) 

ICT-risico van de financiële entiteit waardoor veranderingen die haar ICT-risicoprofiel kunnen beïnvloeden, snel kunnen worden gedetecteerd;

f) 

bepalingen over een proces waarmee veranderingen in de bedrijfsstrategie en de strategie voor digitale weerbaarheid van de financiële entiteit in aanmerking worden genomen.

Voor de toepassing van punt c) van het eerste lid zorgt de in dat punt bedoelde procedure voor:

a) 

de monitoring van de doeltreffendheid van de geïmplementeerde maatregel voor ICT-risicobehandeling;

b) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de vastgestelde risicotolerantieniveaus van de financiële entiteit zijn bereikt;

c) 

de beoordeling van de vraag of de financiële entiteit acties heeft ondernemen om die maatregelen zo nodig te corrigeren of te verbeteren.
EULAW Artikel 4 Beleid voor het beheer van ICT-assets
-
EULAW Artikel 14 Informatie in transit beveiligen
-
EULAW Artikel 15 ICT-projectmanagement
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Governance en organisatie
-
EULAW Artikel 31 ICT-risicobeheersing
-
EULAW Artikel 31 ICT-risicobeheersing
-
EULAW Artikel 8 Identificatie
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Maatregelen voor het beheer van cyberbeveiligingsrisico’s
-
EULAW Artikel 8 Identificatie
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Maatregelen voor het beheer van cyberbeveiligingsrisico’s
-
EULAW Article 8 3

3.   Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall perform a risk assessment upon each major change in the network and information system infrastructure, in the processes or procedures affecting their ICT supported business functions, information assets or ICT assets.
EULAW Article 8 7

7.   Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall on a regular basis, and at least yearly, conduct a specific ICT risk assessment on all legacy ICT systems and, in any case before and after connecting technologies, applications or systems.
EULAW Artikel 95 Beheersing van operationele risico’s en beveiligingsrisico’s
-

Gekoppelde issues

Koppelingen
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.01B
blocks OIS-08.01AS
blocks SP-03.03B
blocks HR-06.06B
blocks AM-06.01B
blocks AM-08.01B
blocks PS-01.02B
blocks PS-08.01B
blocks OPS-18.05B
blocks OPS-22.03B
blocks OPS-32.01B
blocks IAM-03.01B
blocks IAM-05.05B
blocks IAM-08.05B
blocks IAM-09.04B
blocks COS-03.04B
blocks DEV-01.01AC
blocks DEV-14.01AC
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks COM-03.01B
blocks PSS-04.02B
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.01B
blocks OIS-08.01AS
blocks SP-03.03B
blocks HR-06.06B
blocks AM-06.01B
blocks AM-08.01B
blocks PS-01.02B
blocks PS-08.01B
blocks OPS-18.05B
blocks OPS-22.03B
blocks OPS-32.01B
blocks IAM-03.01B
blocks IAM-05.05B
blocks IAM-08.05B
blocks IAM-09.04B
blocks COS-03.04B
blocks DEV-01.01AC
blocks DEV-14.01AC
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks COM-03.01B
blocks PSS-04.02B
is blocked by RSK-13 Risk Assessment – Assessment Procedure
blocks RA-03 Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [L] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [M] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [H] Risk Assessment
blocks RA-03 [P] Risk Assessment
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA-01 Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
blocks ID.RA-05 Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk and inform risk response prioritization
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.