+Artigo 96.o Notificação de incidentes
---+Artigo 96.o 1.
---+Artigo 96.o 2.
---+Artigo 96.o 3.
---+Artigo 96.o 4.
---+Artigo 96.o 5.
---+Artigo 96.o 6.
---+Artigo 96.o 7.

Artigo 96.o Notificação de incidentes

-

1. Visão geral

,
Artigo 96.o 1.
No caso de um incidente operacional ou de segurança de caráter severo, os prestadores de serviços de pagamento notificam sem demora indevida a autoridade competente do Estado-Membro de origem do prestador de serviços de pagamento.

Caso o incidente tenha ou seja suscetível de ter repercussões nos interesses financeiros dos seus utilizadores de serviços de pagamento, o prestador de serviços de pagamento informa-os, sem demora indevida, do incidente e de todas as medidas que podem tomar para atenuar os seus efeitos adversos.
Artigo 96.o 2.
Após a receção da notificação a que se refere o n.o 1, a autoridade competente do Estado-Membro de origem prevista fornece à EBA e ao BCE, sem demora indevida, os pormenores relevantes do incidente. Depois de avaliar a relevância do incidente para as autoridades relevantes desse Estado-Membro, a referida autoridade competente notifica-as em conformidade.

Em cooperação com a autoridade competente do Estado-Membro de origem, a EBA e o BCE avaliam a relevância do incidente para outras autoridades relevantes a nível nacional e da União e notificam-nas em conformidade. O BCE notifica os membros do Sistema Europeu de Bancos Centrais das questões relevantes para o sistema de pagamentos.

Com base na notificação, se for caso disso, as autoridades competentes tomam todas as medidas necessárias para proteger a segurança imediata do sistema financeiro.
Artigo 96.o 3.

Até 13 de janeiro de 2018, a EBA emite orientações, em estreita cooperação com o BCE e após consultar todas as partes interessadas relevantes, inclusive no mercado dos serviços de pagamento, que reflitam todos os interesses envolvidos, nos termos do artigo 16.o do Regulamento (UE) n.o 1093/2010, dirigidas:

a) 

Aos prestadores de serviços de pagamento, sobre a classificação dos incidentes de caráter severo a que se refere o n.o 1 e sobre o conteúdo, o formato, incluindo modelos de notificação normalizados, e os procedimentos de notificação de tais incidentes;

b) 

Às autoridades competentes, sobre os critérios de avaliação da relevância do incidente e sobre os pormenores dos relatórios de incidente a partilhar com outras autoridades nacionais.
Artigo 96.o 4.
Em estreita cooperação com o BCE, a EBA revê periodicamente as orientações a que se refere o n.o 3 e, em todo o caso, pelo menos de dois em dois anos.
Artigo 96.o 5.
Ao emitir e rever as orientações a que se refere o n.o 3, a EBA tem em consideração as normas e/ou especificações elaboradas e publicadas pela Agência da União Europeia para a Segurança das Redes e da Informação, destinadas aos setores que exercem atividades distintas da prestação de serviços de pagamento.
Artigo 96.o 6.
Os Estados-Membros asseguram que os prestadores de serviços de pagamento forneçam, pelo menos anualmente, às respetivas autoridades competentes, dados estatísticos sobre fraudes relacionadas com os diferentes meios de pagamento. Essas autoridades competentes fornecem esses dados à EBA e ao BCE de forma agregada.
Artigo 96.o 7.

Os Estados-Membros asseguram que os n.os 1 a 5 do presente artigo não se aplicam:

a) 

Aos prestadores de serviços de pagamento a que se refere o artigo 1.o, n.o 1, alíneas a), b) e d), da presente diretiva;

b) 

Aos prestadores de serviços de informação referidos no artigo 33.o, n.o 1 da presente diretiva;

c) 

Às instituições de pagamento isentas nos termos do artigo 32.o, n.o 1 da presente diretiva; nem

d) 

Às instituições de moeda eletrónica que beneficiem de uma isenção nos termos do artigo 9.o, n.o 1, da Diretiva 2009/110/CE.

1.1 Referências

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Normas relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Normas relacionadas

Normas
SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Status Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Maintain records for any required compliance filings

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

∙ Designate a compliance contact for required reporting
∙ Track reporting deadlines

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

∙ Compliance calendar for required submissions
∙ Documented reporting procedures

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

∙ Compliance tracking platform
∙ Dedicated compliance officer
∙ Standardized reporting templates

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

∙ Enterprise GRC platform for compliance reporting
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated regulatory submission tracking
∙ Legal and compliance 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

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

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.

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.
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 Serious Incident Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to report any serious incident involving the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.

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.

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 report any serious incident involving the organization's TAASD to relevant authorities in the locality where the incident occurred, in accordance with mandatory reporting:
(1) Requirements; and
(2) Timelines.

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.