+Článok 31 Určenie kritických externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb
---+Článok 31 1
---+Článok 31 2
---+Článok 31 3
---+Článok 31 4
---+Článok 31 5
---+Článok 31 6
---+Článok 31 7
---+Článok 31 8
---+Článok 31 9
---+Článok 31 10
---+Článok 31 11
---+Článok 31 12
---+Článok 31 13
|
Článok 31 Určenie kritických externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb
-
1. Prehľad
| Názov |
Regulácia |
|
Článok 31 1
|
1. Európske orgány dohľadu prostredníctvom spoločného výboru a na základe odporúčania fóra pre dozor zriadeného podľa článku 32 ods. 1:
|
a)
|
určia externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb, ktorí sú pre finančné subjekty kritickí, a to na základe posúdenia, ktoré zohľadňuje kritériá uvedené v odseku 2;
|
|
b)
|
vymenujú za hlavný orgán dozoru pre každého kritického externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb európsky orgán dohľadu, ktorý je v súlade s nariadením (EÚ) č. 1093/2010 (EÚ), (EÚ) č. 1094/2010 alebo (EÚ) č. 1095/2010 zodpovedný za finančné subjekty, ktoré majú spolu najväčší podiel celkových aktív na hodnote celkových aktív všetkých finančných subjektov využívajúcich služby príslušného kritického externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb, ako to dokazuje suma individuálnych súvah uvedených finančných subjektov.
|
|
|
Článok 31 2
|
2. Určenie uvedené v odseku 1 písm. a) vychádza v súvislosti s IKT službami poskytovanými externým poskytovateľom IKT služieb zo všetkých týchto kritérií:
|
a)
|
systémový vplyv na stabilitu, kontinuitu alebo kvalitu poskytovania finančných služieb, ak by príslušný externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb čelil rozsiahlemu prevádzkovému zlyhaniu v poskytovaní svojich služieb, so zohľadnením počtu finančných subjektov a celkovej hodnoty aktív finančných subjektov, ktorým príslušný externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb poskytuje služby;
|
|
b)
|
systémový charakter alebo význam finančných subjektov, ktoré závisia od príslušného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb, posudzovaný v súlade s týmito parametrami:
|
i)
|
počet globálne systémovo významných inštitúcií (ďalej len „G-SII“) alebo inak systémovo významných inštitúcií (ďalej len „O-SII“), ktoré závisia od príslušného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb;
|
|
ii)
|
vzájomná závislosť medzi G-SII alebo O-SII uvedenými v bode i) a inými finančnými subjektmi vrátane situácií, keď G-SII alebo O-SII poskytujú služby finančnej infraštruktúry iným finančným subjektom;
|
|
|
c)
|
závislosť finančných subjektov od služieb, ktoré poskytuje príslušný externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb v súvislosti s kritickými alebo dôležitými funkciami finančných subjektov, ktoré v konečnom dôsledku zahŕňajú toho istého externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb, a to bez ohľadu na to, či finančné subjekty závisia od uvedených služieb priamo alebo nepriamo prostredníctvom subdodávateľských dojednaní;
|
|
d)
|
stupeň nahraditeľnosti externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb pri zohľadnení týchto parametrov:
|
i)
|
neexistencia skutočných, hoci len čiastočných, alternatív z dôvodu obmedzeného počtu externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb na konkrétnom trhu, alebo trhový podiel príslušného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb, alebo súvisiaca technická zložitosť či prepracovanosť, a to aj vo vzťahu k akejkoľvek proprietárnej technológii, alebo osobitosti organizácie alebo činnosti daného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb;
|
|
ii)
|
ťažkosti v súvislosti s čiastočným alebo úplným presunom príslušných údajov a pracovného zaťaženia z príslušného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb na iného externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb, a to buď z dôvodu značných finančných nákladov, času alebo iných zdrojov, ktoré môže takýto presun predstavovať, alebo z dôvodu zvýšeného IKT rizika alebo iných prevádzkových rizík, ktorým môže byť finančný subjekt vystavený pri takomto presune.
|
|
|
|
Článok 31 3
|
3. Ak externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb patrí do skupiny, kritériá uvedené v odseku 2 sa zohľadňujú vo vzťahu k IKT službám, ktoré poskytuje skupina ako celok.
|
|
Článok 31 4
|
4. Kritickí externí poskytovatelia IKT služieb, ktorí sú súčasťou skupiny, určia jednu právnickú osobu ako koordinačné miesto na zabezpečenie primeraného zastúpenia a komunikácie s hlavným orgánom dozoru.
|
|
Článok 31 5
|
5. Hlavný orgán dozoru oznámi externému poskytovateľovi IKT služieb výsledok posúdenia vedúceho k určeniu uvedenému v odseku 1 písm. a). Do šiestich týždňov od dátumu oznámenia môže externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb predložiť hlavnému orgánu dozoru odôvodnené vyhlásenie so všetkými relevantnými informáciami na účely posúdenia. Hlavný orgán dozoru zváži odôvodnené vyhlásenie a môže požiadať o predloženie dodatočných informácií do 30 kalendárnych dní od prijatia takéhoto vyhlásenia.
Po určení externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb za kritického európske orgány dohľadu prostredníctvom spoločného výboru oznámia externému poskytovateľovi IKT služieb takéto určenie a dátum, od ktorého bude skutočne podliehať činnostiam dozoru. Uvedený počiatočný dátum nesmie byť neskôr ako jeden mesiac po oznámení. Externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb oznámi finančným subjektom, ktorým poskytuje služby, že bol určený ako kritický.
|
|
Článok 31 6
|
6. Komisia je splnomocnená prijať delegovaný akt v súlade s článkom 57 na doplnenie tohto nariadenia bližšou špecifikáciou kritérií uvedených v odseku 2 tohto článku do 17. júla 2024.
|
|
Článok 31 7
|
7. Určenie uvedené v odseku 1 písm. a) sa nepoužije dovtedy, kým Komisia neprijme delegovaný akt v súlade s odsekom 6.
|
|
Článok 31 8
|
8. Určenie uvedené v odseku 1 písm. a) sa nevzťahuje na:
|
i)
|
finančné subjekty poskytujúce IKT služby iným finančným subjektom;
|
|
ii)
|
externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb, ktorí podliehajú rámcom dozoru zriadeným na účely podpory úloh uvedených v článku 127 ods. 2 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie;
|
|
iii)
|
vnútroskupinových poskytovateľov IKT služieb;
|
|
iv)
|
externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb, ktorí poskytujú IKT služby výhradne v jednom členskom štáte finančným subjektom, ktoré pôsobia len v danom členskom štáte.
|
|
|
Článok 31 9
|
9. Európske orgány dohľadu prostredníctvom spoločného výboru vypracujú, uverejnia a každoročne aktualizujú zoznam kritických externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb na úrovni Únie.
|
|
Článok 31 10
|
10. Na účely odseku 1 písm. a) príslušné orgány každoročne a súhrnne zasielajú správy uvedené v článku 28 ods. 3 treťom pododseku fóru pre dozor zriadenému podľa článku 32. Fórum pre dozor posudzuje externé závislosti finančných subjektov v oblasti IKT na základe informácií získaných od príslušných orgánov.
|
|
Článok 31 11
|
11. Externí poskytovatelia IKT služieb, ktorí nie sú zahrnutí v zozname uvedenom v odseku 9, môžu požiadať, aby boli určení ako kritickí v súlade s odsekom 1 písm. a).
Na účely prvého pododseku externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb predloží odôvodnenú žiadosť orgánom EBA, ESMA alebo EIOPA, ktoré prostredníctvom spoločného výboru rozhodnú o tom, či určiť tohto externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb ako kritického v súlade s odsekom 1 písm. a).
Rozhodnutie uvedené v druhom pododseku sa prijme a oznámi externému poskytovateľovi IKT služieb do šiestich mesiacov od prijatia žiadosti.
|
|
Článok 31 12
|
12. Finančné subjekty využívajú služby externého poskytovateľa IKT služieb usadeného v tretej krajine, ktorý bol určený ako kritický v súlade s odsekom 1 písm. a), len ak tento poskytovateľ založil dcérsky podnik v Únii do 12 mesiacov od určenia.
|
|
Článok 31 13
|
13. Kritický externý poskytovateľ IKT služieb uvedený v odseku 12 oznámi hlavnému orgánu dozoru všetky zmeny v štruktúre riadenia dcérskeho podniku usadeného v Únii.
|
,
1.1 Odkazy
1.2 Identifikované požiadavky
1.3 Súvisiace štandardy
2. Identifikované požiadavky
Požiadavky
| Zdroj |
Požiadavka |
3. Súvisiace štandardy
Štandardy
| Zdroj |
Požiadavka |
|
SCF
|
Contacts With Authorities
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG)
∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators
∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership
∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts
∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts
∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC)
∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships
∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA)
∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation
∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators)
∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable)
∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols
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.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement.
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.
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 identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
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
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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
|
Third-Party Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained.
▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
|
|