+DORA Ch. IV Art. 26 6.

DORA Ch. IV Art. 26 6.

6.   At the end of the testing, after reports and remediation plans have been agreed, the financial entity and, where applicable, the external testers shall provide to the authority, designated in accordance with paragraph 9 or 10, a summary of the relevant findings, the remediation plans and the documentation demonstrating that the TLPT has been conducted in accordance with the requirements.

1. Übersicht

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Related Standards

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Related Standards

Standards
NOREA Outsourced System testing

Extend TLPT to critical outsourced systems, processes, and technologies. The entity shall remain responsible for control compliance. Collaborate with the service providers to establish risk management controls, mitigating risks to data, assets, and critical functions.

*Note that this control is only applicable for financial institutions wich are eligible for TLPT. Refer to the RTS on TLPT for more information on applicability.
NOREA Selection of TLPT Testers

Engage either internal or external TLPT testers, with external testers contracted every third TLPT cycle. Ensure internal testers are regulator-approved, possess adequate resources, and engage external threat intelligence providers. Select TLPT testers based on reputation, expertise in threat intelligence, penetration testing, and red team practices, relevant certifications, independent assurance, and indemnity insurance coverage. Ensure that contracts concluded with external testers require a sound management of the TLPT results and that any data processing thereof, including any generation, store, aggregation, draft, report, communication or destruction, do not create risks. 

Ensure independence of teams where internal and external testers operate separately, and verify relevant certifications, independent assurance, and indemnity insurance coverage. 
*Note that this control is only applicable for financial institutions wich are eligible for TLPT. Refer to the RTS on TLPT for more information on applicability.
NOREA Periodic TLPT Testing

Conduct Threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) every three years, aligning with the entity's risk profile. Ensure TLPT covers all critical or important functions and test on live production systems. Provide the regulator with a report encompassing TLPT findings, remediation plans, and documentation demonstrating adherence to this control. Perform TLPT according to the DORA TLPT framework (based on the TIBER-EU framework) as defined in the corresponding RTS. 

*Note that this control is only applicable for financial institutions wich are eligible for TLPT. Refer to the RTS on TLPT for more information on applicability.
SCF Penetration Testing

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct penetration testing on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

∙ Annual penetration test by qualified tester

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

∙ Annual penetration test by qualified third-party tester

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

∙ Enterprise penetration testing program
∙ Annual external and internal pen tests

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

∙ Enterprise penetration testing program
∙ Annual and event-driven pen tests
∙ Red team exercises
∙ Purple teaming

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.
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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, or contracted professionals, conduct annual penetration testing on network segments hosting High Value Assets (HVAs).

Level 3 Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution, vulnerability scanning solution, etc.).
▪ 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 VPM 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 conduct penetration testing on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
Impressum Deutsch Englisch