+Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities
---+Select Controls
---+Implement Controls
---+Assess Controls
---+Authorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS)
---+Monitor Controls
|
Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
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. Pregled
| Naslov |
Standard |
|
Select Controls
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to select required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to select required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
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.
|
|
Implement Controls
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to implement required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to implement required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
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.
|
|
Assess Controls
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are:
(1) Designed to meet control objectives;
(2) Implemented correctly; and
(3) Operating as intended.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are:
(1) Implemented correctly; and
(2) Operating as intended.
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.
|
|
Authorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to obtain authorization for the production use of each Technology Asset, Application and/or Service (TAAS) under their control.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to obtain authorization for the production use of each Technology Asset, Application and/or Service (TAAS) under their control.
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.
|
|
Monitor Controls
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to monitor Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, as well as to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
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
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 compel data and/or process owners to monitor Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, as well as to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
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.
|
1.1 Sklici
1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve
1.3 Povezani predpisi
2. Ugotovljene zahteve
3. Povezani predpisi
Predpisi
| Vir |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Člen 17 Sistem upravljanja kakovosti
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 28 Upravljanje in organizacija
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 7 Sistemi, protokoli in orodja IKT
Člen 7
Sistemi, protokoli in orodja IKT
Finančni subjekti za reševanje in obvladovanje tveganj na področju IKT uporabljajo in vzdržujejo posodobljene sisteme, protokole in orodja IKT, ki so:
(a)
ustrezni glede na obsežnost operacij, ki podpirajo izvajanje njihovih dejavnosti, v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti iz člena 4;
(c)
opremljeni z zadostno zmogljivostjo, da pravilno obdelajo podatke, potrebne za izvajanje dejavnosti in pravočasno opravljanje storitev, ter po potrebi obravnavajo velike količine naročil, sporočil ali poslov, tudi kadar se uvede nova tehnologija;
(d)
tehnološko odporni, da se ustrezno spopadajo s potrebami po obdelavi dodatnih informacij, kot se zahteva v stresnih tržnih razmerah ali drugih neugodnih razmerah.
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 9 Varovanje in preprečevanje
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 21 Ukrepi za obvladovanje tveganj za kibernetsko varnost
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 9 3
3. In order to achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 2, financial entities shall use ICT solutions and processes that are appropriate in accordance with Article 4. Those ICT solutions and processes shall:
|
(a)
|
ensure the security of the means of transfer of data;
|
|
(b)
|
minimise the risk of corruption or loss of data, unauthorised access and technical flaws that may hinder business activity;
|
|
(c)
|
prevent the lack of availability, the impairment of the authenticity and integrity, the breaches of confidentiality and the loss of data;
|
|
(d)
|
ensure that data is protected from risks arising from data management, including poor administration, processing-related risks and human error.
|
|
Povezane zadeve
- 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.
|