+Artikel 19 Rapportering av allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter och frivillig anmälan av betydande cyberhot
---+Artikel 19 1
---+Artikel 19 2
---+Artikel 19 3
---+Artikel 19 4
---+Artikel 19 5
---+Artikel 19 6
---+Artikel 19 7
---+Artikel 19 8
|
Artikel 19 Rapportering av allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter och frivillig anmälan av betydande cyberhot
-
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Reglering |
|
Artikel 19 1
|
1. Finansiella entiteter ska rapportera allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter till den relevanta behöriga myndighet som avses i artikel 46 i enlighet med punkt 4 i den här artikeln.
Om en finansiell entitet är föremål för tillsyn av mer än en sådan nationell behörig myndighet som avses i artikel 46 ska medlemsstaterna utse en enda behörig myndighet till relevant behörig myndighet med ansvar för att utföra de funktioner och skyldigheter som föreskrivs i denna artikel.
Kreditinstitut som klassificeras som betydande i enlighet med artikel 6.4 i förordning (EU) nr 1024/2013 ska rapportera allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter till den relevanta nationella behöriga myndighet som utsetts i enlighet med artikel 4 i direktiv 2013/36/EU, och myndigheten ska omedelbart översända den rapporten till ECB.
Vid tillämpning av första stycket ska finansiella entiteter, efter att ha samlat in och analyserat all relevant information, utarbeta den första anmälan och de rapporter som avses i punkt 4 i denna artikel med hjälp av de mallar som avses i artikel 20 och överlämna dem till den behöriga myndigheten. Om det visar sig vara tekniskt omöjligt att överföra den första anmälan med hjälp av mallen ska finansiella entiteter anmäla till den behöriga myndigheten på annat vis.
Den första anmälan och de rapporter som avses i punkt 4 ska innehålla all information som är nödvändig för att den behöriga myndigheten ska kunna fastställa betydelsen av den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten och bedöma eventuella gränsöverskridande konsekvenser.
Utan att det påverkar den finansiella entitetens rapportering enligt första stycket till den relevanta behöriga myndigheten får medlemsstaterna även besluta att vissa eller alla finansiella entiteter dessutom till den första anmälan och de rapporter som avses i punkt 4 i denna artikel ska använda de mallar som avses i artikel 20 när de överlämnar anmälan och rapporterna till de behöriga myndigheterna eller de CSIRT-enheter som utsetts eller inrättats i enlighet med direktiv (EU) 2022/2555.
|
|
Artikel 19 2
|
2. Finansiella entiteter får på frivillig basis rapportera betydande cyberhot till den relevanta behöriga myndigheten, när de anser att hotet är relevant för det finansiella systemet, tjänsteanvändarna eller kunderna. Den relevanta behöriga myndigheten får lämna sådan information till de andra relevanta myndigheter som avses i punkt 6.
Kreditinstitut som klassificeras som betydande i enlighet med artikel 6.4 i förordning (EU) nr 1024/2013 får på frivillig basis rapportera betydande cyberhot till den relevanta nationella behöriga myndighet som utsetts i enlighet med artikel 4 i direktiv 2013/36/EU, och myndigheten ska omedelbart översända den anmälan till ECB.
Medlemsstaterna får fastställa att de finansiella entiteter som rapporterar på frivillig basis i enlighet med första stycket också får vidarebefordra den anmälan till de CSIRT-enheter som utsetts eller inrättats i enlighet med direktiv (EU) 2022/2555.
|
|
Artikel 19 3
|
3. Om en allvarlig IKT-relaterad incident inträffar och påverkar kunders ekonomiska intressen ska finansiella entiteter utan onödigt dröjsmål så snart de blir medvetna om den informera sina kunder om den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten och om de åtgärder som har vidtagits för att mildra de negativa effekterna av en sådan incident.
I händelse av ett betydande cyberhot ska finansiella entiteter, i tillämpliga fall, informera de kunder som kan påverkas om alla lämpliga skyddsåtgärder som de sistnämnda kan överväga att vidta.
|
|
Artikel 19 4
|
4. Finansiella entiteter ska, inom de tidsfrister som ska fastställas i enlighet med artikel 20 första stycket a ii, lämna följande till den relevanta behöriga myndigheten:
|
b)
|
En delrapport efter den första anmälan som avses i led a, så snart statusen för den ursprungliga incidenten har förändrats avsevärt eller hanteringen av den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten har förändrats på grund av ny tillgänglig information, när så är lämpligt åtföljd av uppdaterade anmälningar varje gång en relevant statusuppdatering finns tillgänglig, samt på särskild begäran av den behöriga myndigheten.
|
|
c)
|
En slutrapport, när analysen av grundorsakerna har slutförts, oavsett om begränsande åtgärder redan har vidtagits, och när de faktiska påverkanssiffrorna finns tillgängliga för att ersätta uppskattningar.
|
|
|
Artikel 19 5
|
5. Finansiella entiteter får i enlighet med unionsrätten och nationell rätt på området utkontraktera rapporteringsskyldigheterna enligt denna artikel till en tredjepartsleverantör av tjänster. Vid sådan utkontraktering bär den finansiella entiteten det fulla ansvaret för efterlevnaden av incidentrapporteringskraven.
|
|
Artikel 19 6
|
6. Efter mottagandet av den första anmälan och av varje rapport som avses i punkt 4 ska den behöriga myndigheten skyndsamt lämna närmare uppgifter om den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten till följande mottagare, i tillämpliga fall på grundval av deras respektive behörigheter:
|
a)
|
EBA, Esma eller Eiopa,
|
|
b)
|
ECB när det gäller de finansiella entiteter som avses i artikel 2.1 a, b och d,
|
|
c)
|
de behöriga myndigheter, de gemensamma kontaktpunkter eller de CSIRT-enheter som utsetts eller inrättats i enlighet med direktiv (EU) 2022/2555,
|
|
d)
|
de resolutionsmyndigheter som avses i artikel 3 i direktiv 2014/59/EU och den gemensamma resolutionsnämnden när det gäller sådana enheter som avses i artikel 7.2 i Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) nr 806/2014 (37) och när det gäller sådana enheter och koncerner som avses i artikel 7.4 b och 7.5 i förordning (EU) nr 806/2014 om sådana detaljer gäller incidenter som utgör en risk för säkerställandet av kritiska funktioner i den mening som avses i artikel 2.1.35 i direktiv 2014/59/EU, och
|
|
e)
|
andra relevanta offentliga myndigheter enligt nationell rätt.
|
|
|
Artikel 19 7
|
7. Efter att ha mottagit information i enlighet med punkt 6 ska EBA, Esma eller Eiopa och ECB, i samråd med Enisa och i samarbete med den relevanta behöriga myndigheten, bedöma huruvida den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten är relevant för behöriga myndigheter i andra medlemsstater. Efter denna bedömning ska EBA, Esma eller Eiopa så snart som möjligt underrätta de relevanta behöriga myndigheterna i andra medlemsstater i ärendet. ECB ska underrätta medlemmarna i Europeiska centralbankssystemet om frågor som är relevanta för betalningssystemet. Baserat på denna underrättelse ska de behöriga myndigheterna vid behov vidta alla nödvändiga åtgärder för att skydda det finansiella systemets omedelbara stabilitet.
|
|
Artikel 19 8
|
8. Den anmälan som Esma ska göra enligt punkt 7 i denna artikel ska inte påverka den behöriga myndighetens skyldighet att skyndsamt översända uppgifterna om den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten till den relevanta myndigheten i värdmedlemsstaten, om en värdepapperscentral har betydande gränsöverskridande verksamhet i värdmedlemsstaten, om den allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenten sannolikt kommer att medföra allvarliga konsekvenser för finansmarknaderna i värdmedlemsstaten och om det finns samarbetsarrangemang mellan behöriga myndigheter som gäller tillsynen av finansiella entiteter.
|
,
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade standarder
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade standarder
Standarder
| Källa |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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
|
Incident Stakeholder Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
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
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) 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.
|
|