+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. Översikt
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade regleringar
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade regleringar
Regleringar
| Källa |
Reglering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 3 IKT-riskhantering
Artikel 3
Finansiella entiteter ska utarbeta, dokumentera och genomföra strategier och förfaranden för IKT-riskhantering som ska innehålla allt av följande:
a)
En indikation på godkännandet av risktoleransnivån för IKT-risk enligt artikel 6.8 b i förordning (EU) 2022/2554.
b)
Ett förfarande och en metod för att genomföra IKT-riskbedömningen, som identifierar
i)
sårbarheter och hot som berör eller kan beröra de affärsfunktioner som stöds och de IKT-system och IKT-tillgångar som stöder dessa funktioner,
ii)
kvantitativa eller kvalitativa indikatorer för att mäta effekten av och sannolikheten för de sårbarheter och hot som avses i led i.
c)
Förfarandet för att identifiera, genomföra och dokumentera IKT-riskhanteringsåtgärder för de IKT-risker som identifierats och bedömts, inbegripet fastställandet av IKT-riskhanteringsåtgärder som är nödvändiga för att IKT-risken ska ligga inom den risktoleransnivå som avses i led a.
d)
När det gäller de kvarstående IKT-risker som fortfarande föreligger efter genomförandet av de IKT-riskhanteringsåtgärder som avses i led c:
i)
Bestämmelser om identifiering av dessa kvarstående IKT-risker.
ii)
Fördelning av roller och ansvarsområden avseende
1)
accepterandet av de kvarstående IKT-risker som överskrider den finansiella entitetens risktoleransnivå enligt led a,
2)
den översynsprocess som avses i led iv i detta led d.
iii)
Utarbetandet av en förteckning av de accepterade kvarstående IKT-riskerna, inklusive en motivering till varför de accepteras.
iv)
Bestämmelser om översyn av de accepterade kvarstående IKT-riskerna minst en gång per år, inbegripet
1)
identifiering av eventuella förändringar av de kvarstående IKT-riskerna,
2)
bedömning av tillgängliga begränsningsåtgärder,
3)
bedömning av huruvida de skäl som motiverar accepterandet av kvarstående IKT-risker fortfarande är giltiga och tillämpliga vid tidpunkten för översynen.
e)
Bestämmelser om övervakning av
i)
eventuella förändringar i IKT-riskbilden och cyberhotbilden,
ii)
interna och externa sårbarheter och hot,
iii)
den finansiella entitetens IKT-risk, vilket möjliggör snabb upptäckt av förändringar som kan beröra dess IKT-riskprofil.
f)
Bestämmelser om en process för att säkerställa att förändringar av den finansiella entitetens affärsstrategi och strategi för digital operativ motståndskraft beaktas.
Vid tillämpning av första stycket c ska det förfarande som avses i det ledet säkerställa
a)
övervakning av ändamålsenligheten hos de IKT-riskhanteringsåtgärder som genomförts,
b)
bedömning av huruvida den finansiella entitetens fastställda risktoleransnivåer har uppnåtts,
c)
bedömning av huruvida den finansiella entiteten har vidtagit åtgärder för att vid behov korrigera eller förbättra dessa åtgärder.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 27 Formatet för och innehållet i rapporten om översynen av IKT-riskhanteringsramen
-
|
Länkade ärenden
- 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.
|