+Articolul 16 Cadrul simplificat de gestionare a riscurilor TIC
---+Articolul 16 (1)
---+Articolul 16 (2)
---+Articolul 16 (3)

Articolul 16 Cadrul simplificat de gestionare a riscurilor TIC

1. Prezentare generală

,
Articolul 16 (1)
Articolele 5-15 din prezentul regulament nu se aplică firmelor de investiții mici și neinterconectate, instituțiilor de plată exceptate în temeiul Directivei (UE) 2015/2366; instituțiilor exceptate în temeiul Directivei 2013/36/UE în cazul cărora statele membre au decis să nu aplice opțiunea menționată la articolul 2 alineatul (4) din prezentul regulament; instituțiilor emitente de monedă electronică exceptate în temeiul Directivei 2009/110/CE; și nici instituțiilor mici pentru furnizarea de pensii ocupaționale.

Fără a aduce atingere primului paragraf, entitățile menționate la primul paragraf:

(a) 

instituie și mențin un cadru solid și documentat de gestionare a riscurilor TIC care detaliază mecanismele și măsurile care vizează o gestionare rapidă, eficientă și cuprinzătoare a riscurilor TIC, inclusiv pentru protecția componentelor și infrastructurilor fizice relevante;

(b) 

monitorizează în permanență securitatea și funcționarea tuturor sistemelor TIC;

(c) 

reduc la minimum impactul riscurilor TIC prin utilizarea unor sisteme, protocoale și instrumente TIC solide, reziliente și actualizate care sunt adecvate pentru a sprijini desfășurarea activităților lor și furnizarea serviciilor și protejează în mod adecvat disponibilitatea, autenticitatea, integritatea și confidențialitatea datelor din rețele și sistemele informatice;

(d) 

permit identificarea și detectarea rapidă a surselor de riscuri TIC și a anomaliilor din rețele și sistemele informatice, precum și gestionarea rapidă a incidentelor legate de TIC;

(e) 

identifică principalele dependențe față de furnizorii terți de servicii TIC;

(f) 

asigură continuitatea funcțiilor critice sau importante, prin planuri de continuitate a activității și măsuri de răspuns și de recuperare, care includ, cel puțin, măsuri privind copii de rezervă și restaurarea;

(g) 

testează cu regularitate planurile și măsurile menționate la litera (f), precum și eficacitatea controalelor puse în aplicare în conformitate cu literele (a) și (c);

(h) 

implementează, după caz, concluziile operaționale relevante rezultate din testele menționate la litera (g) și din analiza ulterioară incidentului în procesul de evaluare a riscurilor TIC și elaborează, în funcție de nevoi și de profilul de risc TIC, programe de conștientizare cu privire la securitatea TIC și cursuri de formare în domeniul rezilienței operaționale digitale destinate personalului și conducerii.
Articolul 16 (2)
Cadrul de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la alineatul (1) al doilea paragraf litera (a) se documentează și se revizuiește periodic, precum și în momentul producerii unor incidente majore legate de TIC, în conformitate cu instrucțiunile de supraveghere. Acesta este îmbunătățit în permanență, pe baza învățămintelor desprinse în urma punerii în aplicare și a monitorizării. Autorității competente i se prezintă, la cererea sa, un raport privind revizuirea cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC.
Articolul 16 (3)

AES elaborează, prin intermediul Comitetului comun, în consultare cu ENISA, proiecte comune de standarde tehnice de reglementare în următoarele scopuri:

(a) 

pentru a aduce precizări suplimentare privind elementele care trebuie incluse în cadrul de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la alineatul (1) al doilea paragraf litera (a);

(b) 

pentru a aduce precizări suplimentare privind elementele legate de sistemele, protocoalele și instrumentele destinate reducerii la minimum a impactului riscurilor TIC menționate la alineatul (1) al doilea paragraf litera (c), în scopul asigurării securității rețelelor, al asigurării unor garanții adecvate împotriva intruziunilor și a utilizării necorespunzătoare a datelor și al menținerii disponibilității, autenticității, integrității și confidențialității datelor;

(c) 

pentru a aduce precizări suplimentare privind componentele planurilor de continuitate a activității TIC menționate la alineatul (1) al doilea paragraf litera (f);

(d) 

pentru a aduce precizări suplimentare privind normele referitoare la testarea planurilor de continuitate a activității și pentru a asigura eficacitatea controalelor menționate la alineatul (1) al doilea paragraf litera (g), precum și pentru a garanta faptul că o astfel de testare ține seama în mod corespunzător de scenariile în care calitatea furnizării unei funcții critice sau importante se deteriorează până la un nivel inacceptabil sau eșuează;

(e) 

pentru a aduce precizări suplimentare privind conținutul și formatul raportului referitor la revizuirea cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la alineatul (2).

Atunci când elaborează proiectele respective de standarde tehnice de reglementare, AES iau în considerare dimensiunea și profilul general de risc al entității financiare, precum și natura, amploarea și complexitatea serviciilor, activităților și operațiunilor sale.

AES transmit Comisiei aceste proiecte de standarde tehnice de reglementare până la 17 ianuarie 2024.

Se deleagă Comisiei competența de a completa prezentul regulament prin adoptarea standardelor tehnice de reglementare menționate la primul paragraf, în conformitate cu articolele 10-14 din Regulamentele (UE) nr. 1093/2010, (UE) nr. 1094/2010 și (UE) nr. 1095/2010.

1.1 Referințe

1.2 Cerințe identificate

1.3 Standarde asociate

2. Cerințe identificate

Cerințe

3. Standarde asociate

Standarde
SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures).
▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system.
▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery Policy

Description

Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) policy that:
(1) Conveys executive management's intent;
(2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors;
(3) Is reviewed at least annually; and
(4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Documented annual policy review with version control

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow
∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management
∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history
∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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).

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 Continue Essential Mission & Business Functions

Description

Mechanisms exist to continue essential missions and business functions with little or no loss of operational continuity and sustain that continuity until full system restoration of primary processing and/or storage sites is performed.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective.
▪ Production TAASD support business-critical application and services failover.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners define Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) for business-critical TAASD.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners define Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) for business-critical TAASD.

Level 3 Well Defined

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 continue essential missions and business functions with little or no loss of operational continuity and sustain that continuity until full system restoration at primary processing and/or storage sites.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.