+Risk Tolerance
|
Risk Tolerance
Description
Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Defined risk tolerance
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 organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.
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. Prehľad
1.1 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požiadavky
1.3 Súvisiace predpisy
2. Identifikované požiadavky
Požiadavky
| Zdroj |
Požiadavka |
3. Súvisiace predpisy
Predpisy
| Zdroj |
Regulácia |
|
EULAW
|
Článok 3 Riadenie IKT rizika
Článok 3
Finančné subjekty vypracujú, zdokumentujú a vykonávajú politiky a postupy riadenia IKT rizika, ktoré obsahujú všetky tieto prvky:
a)
údaj o schválení úrovne tolerancie rizika v prípade IKT rizika stanoveného v súlade s článkom 6 ods. 8 písm. b) nariadenia (EÚ) 2022/2554;
b)
postup a metodiku na vykonávanie posudzovania IKT rizika, v ktorých sa identifikujú:
i)
zraniteľné miesta a hrozby, ktoré ovplyvňujú alebo môžu ovplyvniť podporované obchodné funkcie, IKT systémy a IKT aktíva podporujúce uvedené funkcie;
ii)
kvantitatívne alebo kvalitatívne ukazovatele na meranie vplyvu a pravdepodobnosti zraniteľných miest a hrozieb uvedených v bode i);
c)
postup identifikácie, vykonávania a dokumentácie opatrení na riešenie IKT rizika v prípade identifikovaných a posudzovaných IKT rizík vrátane určenia opatrení na riešenie IKT rizika, ktoré sú potrebné na to, aby sa IKT riziko dostalo do úrovne tolerancie rizika uvedenej v písmene a);
d)
v prípade zvyškových IKT rizík, ktoré sú stále prítomné po vykonaní opatrení na riešenie IKT rizika uvedených v písmene c):
i)
ustanovenia o identifikácii uvedených zvyškových IKT rizík;
ii)
pridelenie úloh a zodpovedností, pokiaľ ide o:
1.
akceptovanie zvyškových IKT rizík, ktoré prekračujú úroveň tolerancie voči riziku finančného subjektu uvedenú v písmene a);
2.
postup preskúmania uvedený v bode iv) tohto písmena d);
iii)
vypracovanie zoznamu akceptovaných zvyškových IKT rizík vrátane uvedenia dôvodu, prečo boli akceptované;
iv)
ustanovenia o preskúmaní akceptovaných zvyškových IKT rizík aspoň raz ročne vrátane:
1.
identifikácie všetkých zmien zvyškových IKT rizík;
2.
posúdenia dostupných zmierňujúcich opatrení;
3.
posúdenia toho, či sú dôvody na akceptovanie zvyškových IKT rizík stále platné a uplatniteľné k dátumu preskúmania;
e)
ustanovenia o monitorovaní:
i)
všetkých zmien panorámy hrozieb IKT rizika a kybernetických hrozieb;
ii)
vnútorných a vonkajších zraniteľných miest a hrozieb;
iii)
IKT rizika finančného subjektu, ktoré umožňuje rýchle odhalenie zmien, ktoré by mohli ovplyvniť jeho profil IKT rizika;
f)
ustanovenia o postupe na zabezpečenie toho, aby sa zohľadnili všetky zmeny obchodnej stratégie a stratégie digitálnej prevádzkovej odolnosti finančného subjektu.
Na účely prvého odseku písm. c) sa postupom uvedeným v uvedenom písmene zabezpečí:
a)
monitorovanie účinnosti zavedených opatrení na riešenie IKT rizika;
b)
posúdenie toho, či sa dosiahli stanovené úrovne tolerancie rizika finančného subjektu;
c)
posúdenie toho, či finančný subjekt v prípade potreby prijal opatrenia na nápravu alebo zlepšenie týchto opatrení.
|
|
EULAW
|
Článok 27 Formát a obsah správy o preskúmaní rámca riadenia IKT rizika
-
|
Prepojené úlohy
- 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.
|