+Risk Identification
|
Risk Identification
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and document risks, both internal and external.
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 identify and document risks, both internal and external.
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. Przegląd
1.1 Odwołania
1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania
1.3 Powiązane regulacje
2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania
Wymagania
| Źródło |
Wymaganie |
3. Powiązane regulacje
Regulacje
| Źródło |
Regulacja |
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 1
1. Financial entities shall manage ICT third-party risk as an integral component of ICT risk within their ICT risk management framework as referred to in Article 6(1), and in accordance with the following principles:
|
(a)
|
financial entities that have in place contractual arrangements for the use of ICT services to run their business operations shall, at all times, remain fully responsible for compliance with, and the discharge of, all obligations under this Regulation and applicable financial services law;
|
|
(b)
|
financial entities’ management of ICT third-party risk shall be implemented in light of the principle of proportionality, taking into account:
|
(i)
|
the nature, scale, complexity and importance of ICT-related dependencies,
|
|
(ii)
|
the risks arising from contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services concluded with ICT third-party service providers, taking into account the criticality or importance of the respective service, process or function, and the potential impact on the continuity and availability of financial services and activities, at individual and at group level.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 2
2. As part of their ICT risk management framework, financial entities, other than entities referred to in Article 16(1), first subparagraph, and other than microenterprises, shall adopt, and regularly review, a strategy on ICT third-party risk, taking into account the multi-vendor strategy referred to in Article 6(9), where applicable. The strategy on ICT third-party risk shall include a policy on the use of ICT services supporting critical or important functions provided by ICT third-party service providers and shall apply on an individual basis and, where relevant, on a sub-consolidated and consolidated basis. The management body shall, on the basis of an assessment of the overall risk profile of the financial entity and the scale and complexity of the business services, regularly review the risks identified in respect to contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services supporting critical or important functions.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 3
3. As part of their ICT risk management framework, financial entities shall maintain and update at entity level, and at sub-consolidated and consolidated levels, a register of information in relation to all contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services provided by ICT third-party service providers.
The contractual arrangements referred to in the first subparagraph shall be appropriately documented, distinguishing between those that cover ICT services supporting critical or important functions and those that do not.
Financial entities shall report at least yearly to the competent authorities on the number of new arrangements on the use of ICT services, the categories of ICT third-party service providers, the type of contractual arrangements and the ICT services and functions which are being provided.
Financial entities shall make available to the competent authority, upon its request, the full register of information or, as requested, specified sections thereof, along with any information deemed necessary to enable the effective supervision of the financial entity.
Financial entities shall inform the competent authority in a timely manner about any planned contractual arrangement on the use of ICT services supporting critical or important functions as well as when a function has become critical or important.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 4
4. Before entering into a contractual arrangement on the use of ICT services, financial entities shall:
|
(a)
|
assess whether the contractual arrangement covers the use of ICT services supporting a critical or important function;
|
|
(b)
|
assess if supervisory conditions for contracting are met;
|
|
(c)
|
identify and assess all relevant risks in relation to the contractual arrangement, including the possibility that such contractual arrangement may contribute to reinforcing ICT concentration risk as referred to in Article 29;
|
|
(d)
|
undertake all due diligence on prospective ICT third-party service providers and ensure throughout the selection and assessment processes that the ICT third-party service provider is suitable;
|
|
(e)
|
identify and assess conflicts of interest that the contractual arrangement may cause.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 5
5. Financial entities may only enter into contractual arrangements with ICT third-party service providers that comply with appropriate information security standards. When those contractual arrangements concern critical or important functions, financial entities shall, prior to concluding the arrangements, take due consideration of the use, by ICT third-party service providers, of the most up-to-date and highest quality information security standards.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 6
6. In exercising access, inspection and audit rights over the ICT third-party service provider, financial entities shall, on the basis of a risk-based approach, pre-determine the frequency of audits and inspections as well as the areas to be audited through adhering to commonly accepted audit standards in line with any supervisory instruction on the use and incorporation of such audit standards.
Where contractual arrangements concluded with ICT third-party service providers on the use of ICT services entail high technical complexity, the financial entity shall verify that auditors, whether internal or external, or a pool of auditors, possess appropriate skills and knowledge to effectively perform the relevant audits and assessments.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 7
7. Financial entities shall ensure that contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services may be terminated in any of the following circumstances:
|
(a)
|
significant breach by the ICT third-party service provider of applicable laws, regulations or contractual terms;
|
|
(b)
|
circumstances identified throughout the monitoring of ICT third-party risk that are deemed capable of altering the performance of the functions provided through the contractual arrangement, including material changes that affect the arrangement or the situation of the ICT third-party service provider;
|
|
(c)
|
ICT third-party service provider’s evidenced weaknesses pertaining to its overall ICT risk management and in particular in the way it ensures the availability, authenticity, integrity and, confidentiality, of data, whether personal or otherwise sensitive data, or non-personal data;
|
|
(d)
|
where the competent authority can no longer effectively supervise the financial entity as a result of the conditions of, or circumstances related to, the respective contractual arrangement.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 28 8
8. For ICT services supporting critical or important functions, financial entities shall put in place exit strategies. The exit strategies shall take into account risks that may emerge at the level of ICT third-party service providers, in particular a possible failure on their part, a deterioration of the quality of the ICT services provided, any business disruption due to inappropriate or failed provision of ICT services or any material risk arising in relation to the appropriate and continuous deployment of the respective ICT service, or the termination of contractual arrangements with ICT third-party service providers under any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 7.
Financial entities shall ensure that they are able to exit contractual arrangements without:
|
(a)
|
disruption to their business activities,
|
|
(b)
|
limiting compliance with regulatory requirements,
|
|
(c)
|
detriment to the continuity and quality of services provided to clients.
|
Exit plans shall be comprehensive, documented and, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 4(2), shall be sufficiently tested and reviewed periodically.
Financial entities shall identify alternative solutions and develop transition plans enabling them to remove the contracted ICT services and the relevant data from the ICT third-party service provider and to securely and integrally transfer them to alternative providers or reincorporate them in-house.
Financial entities shall have appropriate contingency measures in place to maintain business continuity in the event of the circumstances referred to in the first subparagraph.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 21 Środki zarządzania ryzykiem w cyberbezpieczeństwie
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 9 System zarządzania ryzykiem
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 3 Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT
Artykuł 3
Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT
Podmioty finansowe opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają polityki i procedury zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT, które obejmują wszystkie następujące elementy:
a)
wskazanie zatwierdzenia poziomu tolerancji ryzyka w odniesieniu do ryzyka związanego z ICT ustanowionego zgodnie z art. 6 ust. 8 lit. b) rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554;
b)
procedurę i metodykę przeprowadzania oceny ryzyka związanego z ICT, określające:
(i)
podatności i zagrożenia, które wpływają lub mogą wpływać na wspierane funkcje biznesowe, systemy ICT i zasoby ICT wspierające te funkcje;
(ii)
wskaźniki ilościowe lub jakościowe służące do pomiaru wpływu i prawdopodobieństwa wystąpienia podatności i zagrożeń, o których mowa w pkt (i);
c)
procedurę określania, wdrażania i dokumentowania środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT w odniesieniu do zidentyfikowanego i ocenianego ryzyka związanego z ICT, w tym określenie środków przeciwdziałania ryzyku związanemu z ICT niezbędnych do sprowadzenia ryzyka związanego z ICT do poziomu tolerancji ryzyka, o którym mowa w lit. a);
d)
w odniesieniu do rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, które nadal istnieje po wdrożeniu środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT, o których mowa w lit. c):
(i)
przepisy dotyczące identyfikacji tego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT;
(ii)
podział ról i obowiązków w odniesieniu do:
1)
akceptacji rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, które przekracza poziom tolerancji ryzyka podmiotu finansowego, o którym mowa w lit. a);
2)
procesu przeglądu, o którym mowa w lit. d) pkt (iv);
(iii)
opracowanie wykazu akceptowanego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, w tym uzasadnienia jego akceptacji;
(iv)
przepisy dotyczące przeglądu akceptowanego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT co najmniej raz w roku, w tym:
1)
określenie wszelkich zmian rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT;
2)
ocenę dostępnych środków łagodzących;
3)
ocenę, czy powody uzasadniające akceptację rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT są nadal aktualne i mają zastosowanie w dniu przeglądu;
e)
przepisy dotyczące monitorowania:
(i)
wszelkich zmian ryzyka związanego z ICT i krajobrazu cyberzagrożeń;
(ii)
podatności i zagrożeń o charakterze wewnętrznym i zewnętrznym:
(iii)
ryzyka związanego z ICT danego podmiotu finansowego, które umożliwia szybkie wykrywanie zmian, które mogą mieć wpływ na jego profil ryzyka związanego z ICT;
f)
przepisy dotyczące procesu zapewniającego uwzględnienie wszelkich zmian w strategii biznesowej i strategii operacyjnej odporności cyfrowej podmiotu finansowego.
Do celów akapitu pierwszego lit. c) procedura, o której mowa w tej literze, zapewnia:
a)
monitorowanie skuteczności wdrożonych środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT;
b)
ocenę, czy osiągnięto ustalone poziomy tolerancji ryzyka podmiotu finansowego;
c)
ocenę tego, czy podmiot finansowy podjął działania w celu skorygowania lub udoskonalenia tych środków w razie potrzeby.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 31 Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 8 Identyfikacja
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artykuł 8 Identyfikacja
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 8 2
2. Financial entities shall, on a continuous basis, identify all sources of ICT risk, in particular the risk exposure to and from other financial entities, and assess cyber threats and ICT vulnerabilities relevant to their ICT supported business functions, information assets and ICT assets. Financial entities shall review on a regular basis, and at least yearly, the risk scenarios impacting them.
|
Powiązane zgłoszenia
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|