+Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
---+Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans

Description

Mechanisms exist for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Basic business continuity plan
∙ Regular data backup

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Business continuity plan
∙ Tested backup and restore procedures

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal BCP/DRP program
∙ Regular backup testing
∙ Alternate processing capability

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise BCP/DRP program
∙ DR site
∙ Annual exercises
∙ RTO/RPO targets

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise BC/DR platform (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Enterprise)
∙ Dedicated DR site
∙ Automated failover
∙ Annual DR exercises

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.

Level 3 Well Defined

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.

1. Översikt

Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

1.1 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade regleringar

2. Identifierade krav

Krav
Källa	Krav

3. Relaterade regleringar

Regleringar

EULAW

Artikel 11 4

4. Finansiella entiteter ska införa, upprätthålla och regelbundet testa lämpliga IKT-kontinuitetsplaner, särskilt när det gäller kritiska eller viktiga funktioner som har utkontrakterats eller kontrakterats genom arrangemang med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.

EULAW

Artikel 11 6

6. Som en del av sin övergripande IKT-riskhantering ska finansiella entiteter

a)	testa IKT-kontinuitetsplanerna och åtgärds- och återställningsplanerna avseende IKT för de IKT-system som stöder alla funktioner minst en gång per år samt i samband med omfattande ändringar av de IKT-system som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner,

b)	testa de kriskommunikationsplaner som har upprättats i enlighet med artikel 14.

Vid tillämpning av första stycket led a ska andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag i testplanerna inkludera scenarier för cyberangrepp och byten mellan den primära IKT-infrastrukturen och den reservkapacitet, de säkerhetskopior och reservanläggningar som krävs för att uppfylla de skyldigheter som anges i artikel 12.

Finansiella entiteter ska regelbundet se över sin IKT-kontinuitetspolicy och sina åtgärds- och återställningsplaner avseende IKT med hänsyn till resultatet av tester som har utförts i enlighet med första stycket och rekommendationer från revisionskontroller eller tillsynsgranskningar.

EULAW

Artikel 24 1

1. För att bedöma beredskapen för hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter, identifiera svagheter, brister och luckor i den digitala operativa motståndskraften och snabbt genomföra korrigerande åtgärder ska andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag, med hänsyn till de kriterier som fastställs i artikel 4.2, inrätta, upprätthålla och se över ett sunt och heltäckande program för testning av digital operativ motståndskraft som en integrerad del av den IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.

EULAW

Artikel 24 2

2. Programmet för testning av digital operativ motståndskraft ska omfatta en rad bedömningar, tester, metoder, praxis och verktyg som ska tillämpas i enlighet med artiklarna 25 och 26.

EULAW

Artikel 24 3

3. När andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag genomför det testprogram för digital operativ motståndskraft som avses i punkt 1 i denna artikel ska de följa en riskbaserad metod med hänsyn tagen till kriterierna i artikel 4.2 med vederbörligt beaktande av IKT-riskens utveckling, eventuella specifika risker som den berörda finansiella entiteten är eller kan bli exponerad för, kritikaliteten hos informationstillgångar och tillhandahållna tjänster samt varje annan faktor som den finansiella entiteten anser lämplig.

EULAW

Artikel 24 4

4. Andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag ska se till att testerna utförs av oberoende parter, oavsett om de är interna eller externa. När tester utförs av en intern testare ska finansiella entiteter avsätta tillräckliga resurser och säkerställa att intressekonflikter kan undvikas under testets utformning och genomförande.

EULAW

Artikel 24 5

5. Andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag ska fastställa förfaranden och strategier för prioritering, klassificering och åtgärdande av alla problem som visar sig under genomförandet av testerna och ska införa interna valideringsmetoder för att säkerställa att alla identifierade svagheter, brister eller luckor åtgärdas fullt ut.

EULAW

Artikel 24 6

6. Andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag ska säkerställa, åtminstone årligen, att lämpliga tester utförs på alla IKT-system och IKT-tillämpningar som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner.

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-

EULAW

Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-

EULAW