COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on digital operational resilience for the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014 and (EU) No 909/2014
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, digital single market, digitisation, financial services, financial technology, information security, information technology, outsourcing, risk management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.9.2020  SWD(2020) 198 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on digital operational resilience for the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014 and (EU) No 909/2014 {COM(2020) 595 final} - {SEC(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 199 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

1.1.  Political context ................................................................................................. 3 
1.2.  Market context ................................................................................................... 5 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY .................................................. 10 

2.1.  Problem definition ........................................................................................... 10 
2.1.1.  Fragmentation in managing ICT risks ............................................... 10 
2.1.2. 

Ineffective  reporting  of  and  limited  awareness  about  threats  and 
incidents............................................................................................. 12 
2.1.3.  Limited and uncoordinated testing .................................................... 15 
ICT third-party risks .......................................................................... 17 
2.1.4. 
Problem tree .................................................................................................... 22 
2.2.  The EU's need to act and justification ............................................................. 23 
2.2.1.  Legal basis ......................................................................................... 23 
2.2.2.  Subsidiarity: Need for EU action ...................................................... 23 
2.2.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ............................................ 24 

3.  OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 25 

Table 2 – Intervention logic diagram .............................................................. 26 

4.  OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS ...................................... 27 

4.1.  Do nothing: No change in the EU financial services regulatory framework .. 29 

4.1.1.  Overall  assessment  of  the  current  state  of  play  and  expected 

impact ................................................................................................ 30 

4.2.  Option  1:  Strengthening  financial  institutions’  ability  to  absorb  losses 

stemming from lack of digital operational resilience ...................................... 33 
4.2.1.  Assessment of the impact .................................................................. 34 
4.2.2.  Overall assessment of the option ....................................................... 36 
4.3.  Option 2: A digital operational resilience act for the financial sector............. 37 
4.3.1.  Assessment of the impact .................................................................. 40 
4.3.2.  Overall assessment of the option ....................................................... 45 

4.4.  Option  3:  A  financial  services  digital  operational  resilience  act  together 

with centralised supervision of activities of critical ICT TPPs ....................... 46 
4.4.1.  Assessment of the impact .................................................................. 47 
4.4.2.  Overall assessment of the option ....................................................... 48 
4.5.  Comparison of options .................................................................................... 50 
4.6.  Retained option ............................................................................................... 51 

5.  OTHER SPECIFIC IMPACTS OF THE RETAINED POLICY OPTION .............. 52 

Impacts on SMEs ............................................................................................ 52 
5.1. 
5.2.  Social impacts ................................................................................................. 52 
5.3.  Environmental impacts .................................................................................... 53 

1 

 
 
6.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................... 53 

ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................. 55 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

Lead DG, Decide planning / CWP references ................................................. 55 
Organisation and timing .................................................................................. 55 
Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) ................................... 55 
Evidence, sources and quality ......................................................................... 56 

ANNEX  2  –  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  REGULATORY  FRAMEWORK 

CONCERNING DIGITAL OPERATIONAL RESILIENCE................................... 57 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

ICT risk management ...................................................................................... 57 
Incident notification ........................................................................................ 62 
Testing ............................................................................................................. 63 
Third party risk ................................................................................................ 64 

ANNEX 3 – SYNOPIS REPORT ON STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .............. 67 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 67 
1. 
Overview of respondents and responses ......................................................... 68 
2. 
Summary of respondents’ feedback ................................................................ 69 
3. 
ICT risk management requirements ................................................................ 69 
3.1. 
ICT incident reporting requirements ............................................................... 72 
3.2. 
3.3.  Digital operational resilience testing .............................................................. 73 
3.4.  Addressing third party risk: oversight of TPPs (including outsourcing) ........ 75 
3.5.  Other areas where EU action may be needed ................................................. 79 
3.6. 
Interaction with the NIS Directive .................................................................. 81 
3.7.  Potential impacts ............................................................................................. 83 

ANNEX 4 – DETAILED PROVISIONS UNDER THE RETAINED OPTION ............. 86 

ANNEX 5 – WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW? ....................... 89 

1. 
2. 

Practical implications of the initiative ............................................................. 89 
Summary of cost and benefits ......................................................................... 89 

ANNEX 6 – GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. 95 

2 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Political context 

As  stated  by  President  von  der  Leyen  in  her  Political  Guidelines,1  and  set  out  in  the 
Communication ‘Shaping  Europe’s digital  future’,2 it is  crucial that  Europe can reap all the 
benefits  of  the  digital  age  and  strengthens  its  industry  and  innovation  capacity,  within  safe 
and  ethical  boundaries.  The  European  strategy  for  data3  sets  out  four    pillars  –  data 
protection,  fundamental  rights,  safety  and  cyber-security  –  as  essential  pre-requisites  for  a 
society empowered by data.  

New technologies are transforming the EU financial system and the way it provides services 
to  Europe’s  businesses  and  citizens.  The  socioeconomic  consequences  of  the  Covid-19 
pandemic  have  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  digital  finance  and  the  imperative  of 
allowing  business  to  be  conducted  remotely  and  through  innovative  digital  technologies, 
wherever possible.  

Digitalisation  and  operational  resilience  in  the  financial  sector  are  two  sides  of  the  same 
coin,  as digital  opportunities can also  give rise to risks that need to  be  well understood and 
managed.  It  is  of  paramount  importance  for  financial  institutions  to  assure  business 
continuity,  confidence  and  the  provision  of  services  to  consumers  and  the  economy,  both 
under normal operating conditions, and in particular under situations of stress (see Box 1 for 
further explanation on the concept of operational resilience). This is amply demonstrated by 
the  operational  challenges  resulting  from  Covid-19  response  measures.  The  Financial 
Stability Board (FSB) has also warned that the financial industry is at particular risk of cyber-
attack during the Covid-19 outbreak given the increase in remote working,4 where continuity 
in  delivering  some  products  and  services  is  ensured  by  employees  working  from  home. 
Industry  reports5  also  highlight  several  other  implications  for  financial  institutions  in  this 
context, such as  the large-scale shift  to  remote working and digital  channels  in  a very short 
period of time, which led to higher demands on institutions’ digital infrastructure to replace 
manual  operations,  increased  use  of  third  party  service  providers  (e.g.  cloud  service 
providers),  employees  working  with  sensitive data in  less secure home-based environments, 
increased demand for quick and tailored crisis communication channels with all stakeholders 
(e.g. employees, customers, regulators), etc. 

In recent years, and because ICT risks know no borders, ICT risks have come onto the radar 
of national, European and international policy makers, regulators and standard-setting bodies 
in  an  attempt  to  enhance  resilience,  set  standards  and  coordinate  regulatory  or  supervisory 
work. This work has been carried out both across industries and in a sector specific manner 
for  a  number  of  sectors,  including  financial  services.  In  the  financial  sector,  the  European 
Systemic  Risk  Board  (ESRB)  identified  cyber  risk  as  a  source  of  systemic  risk  to  the  EU 

1 Ursula Von Der Leyen, Political Guidelines for the next European Commission, 2019-2024. 
2  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Region, Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, COM(2020) 67 final. 
3  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Region, A European strategy for data, COM(2020) 66 final. 
4 Financial Stability Board (FSB), COVID-19 pandemic: Financial stability implications and policy measures taken (15 April 
2020), https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P150420.pdf  
5 See https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/covid-19/banking-and-capital-markets-impact-covid-
19.html?id=us:2em:3pa:financial-services:eng:di:031720,  https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/covid-19-
insights-emerging-risks.html, and https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/mcafee-report-shows-rise-in-cyber-attacks-as-
cloud-services-use-goes-up-during-covid-19-6013631.htm  

3 

 
                                                 
financial  system,  with  the  potential  to  have  serious  negative  consequences  for  the  real 
economy.6  The  FSB  has  also  stressed  that  risks  to  financial  stability  could  arise  from 
“interconnected  IT  systems  between  multiple  financial  institutions  or  between  financial 
institutions and third-party service providers”.7 At international level, the Basel Committee on 
Banking  Supervision8  (BCBS),  Committee  on  Payments  and  Markets  Infrastructures9 
(CPMI), Financial Stability Board10 (FSB), Financial Stability Institute11 (FSI), G712 and G20 
all  aim  to  provide  authorities  and  market  operators  across  jurisdictions  with  tools to  bolster 
the resilience of their financial systems.  

Despite  the  significant  progress  made  through  national  and  European  targeted  policy  and 
legislative  initiatives,  ICT  risks  continue  to  pose  a  challenge  to  the  operational  resilience, 
performance and the stability of the EU financial system. The reform that followed the 2008 
financial crisis primarily strengthened the financial resilience13 of the EU financial sector and 
aimed  at  safeguarding  EU  competitiveness  and  stability  from  economic,  prudential  and 
market conduct perspectives. ICT security and overall digital operational resilience are part of 
operational risk, but have been less in the focus of the post-crisis regulatory agenda, and have 
developed only in some areas of EU financial markets policy and regulation, or only in a few 
Member States. The Commission’s 2018 Fintech action plan highlighted that making the EU 
financial  sector  more  resilient  also  from  an  operational  perspective  is  of  paramount 
importance to ensure that it is well protected, that it can recover from breaches and incidents, 
that  it  is  functioning  well  and  that  financial  services  are  delivered  effectively  and  smoothly 
across  the  EU,  including  under  situations  of  stress,  and  that  consumer  and  market  trust  and 
confidence are preserved.14 

As the EU financial sector is highly integrated and interconnected, so is EU level regulation 
and supervision. To maintain a level playing field among financial institutions and to ensure 
that  they  are  all  subject  to  a  high  level  of  prudential,  market  integrity  and  market  conduct 
rules,  an  EU  system  of  financial  supervision  and  a  Single  Rulebook  for  financial  services15 
has  been  gradually  created,  including  the  creation  of  EU  supervisory  authorities  (ESAs)  for 
banking  (EBA),  securities  markets  (ESMA),  insurance  and  occupational  pensions  (EIOPA), 
the  Single  Supervisory  Mechanism  (SSM)  at  the  ECB  and  the  Single  Resolution  Board 
(SRB).  This  level  of  regulatory  and  supervisory  integration  at  EU  level  is  unique  and 
unmatched in other sectors.  

6 ESRB report Systemic Cyber Risk from February 2020, 
https://www.esrb.europa.eu/news/pr/date/2020/html/esrb.pr200219~61abad5f20.en.html.  
7 https://www.fsb.org/2020/04/effective-practices-for-cyber-incident-response-and-recovery-consultative-document/    
8 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Cyber-resilience: Range of practices, December 2018. 
9  The  Committee  on  Payments  and  Market  Infrastructures  and  the  International  Organization  of  Securities  Commissions 
(CPMI-IOSCO) Guidance on cyber resilience for financial market infrastructures (2016). 
10 The FSB Cyber Lexicon (2018), and also a Cyber Incident Response and Recovery: Progress Report to the G20 Finance 
Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting in Fukuoka, 8-9 June 2019, May 2019. 
11 The Financial Stability Institute Regulatory approaches to enhance banks’ cyber security frameworks (2017).  
12 The G7 Fundamental Elements of Cybersecurity for the Financial Sector (2016), the Fundamental Elements for Third 
Party Cyber Risk Management in the Financial Sector (2018) and the Fundamental Elements for Threat-led Penetration 
Testing (2019). Besides, the G7 has started conducting cross-jurisdictional cyber exercises. 
13 The different measures adopted aimed to increase the capital position, liquidity, reduce market and credit risk for financial 
institutions, etc. 
14 European Commission, Fintech Action Plan, COM/2018/0109 final. 
15 The Single Rulebook represents the harmonised prudential rules that EU financial institutions must abide to. The term 
Single Rulebook was coined in 2009 by the European Council to refer to the objective to unify the EU regulatory framework 
to complete the single market in financial services.  

4 

 
                                                 
Nonetheless, the European Single Rulebook for financial services and the European system of 
financial  supervision  does  not  comprehensively  harmonise  provisions  tackling  digital 
operational  resilience  and  ICT  security.  Digital  operational  resilience  and  security  are 
essential  for  financial  markets,  especially  in  the  digital  age,  and  no  less  important  than  for 
example  common  prudential  or  market  conduct  standard;  the  financial  services  Single 
Rulebook and system of supervision should therefore be developed to cover this field too.  

In April 2019, the ESAs therefore jointly issued two pieces of technical advice emphasising 
the  need  for  a  coherent  approach  to  ICT  risk  in  finance,  recommending  to  strengthen,  in  a 
proportionate way, the digital operational resilience of the financial services industry through 
an EU sector-specific initiative.16  

The purpose of this document is to assess the case for action, the objectives, and the impact of 
different  policy  options  for  a  legislative  initiative  on  digital  operational  resilience  in  the 
Financial Sector, as envisaged by the 2020 Commission work programme. 17 

1.2. Market context 

The past decades have witnessed significant advances and increased complexity in the use of 
ICT in finance. The financial sector has become as much about data and technology as it is 
about  money  and  capital.  In  terms  of  expenditure,  the  financial  sector  is  by  quite  some 
distance  the  largest  ICT  sector  of  the  economy,  accounting  for  about  20%  of  global  ICT 
expenditure.18  

Digitalization is a vital driving force in the transformation of nearly all financial sectors. 
It this not only covers payments, which increasingly have moved from cash and paper-based 
methods  to  digital  solutions,  but  also  back-office  operations,  electronic  and  algorithmic 
trading,  lending  and  funding  including  credit  rating,  insurance  underwriting,  claim 
management  and  peer-to-peer  finance.  According  to  a  report  by  the  Bank  for  International 
settlements,19 which reflects numbers from 2016, around 90% of all futures trading was done 
electronically, and 80%  of all foreign  currency  exchange and  equity  trading.  Other industry 
reports20 show that around 70% of Europeans use online banking on a regular basis, with this 
percentage  going  above  90%  in  some  Member  States.  ICT  risk  therefore  puts  a  continuous 
stress on the financial sector due the sector’s overwhelming dependency on software, data and 
digital  processes  for  performing  key  financial  services  operations  and  functions.  Figure  1 
illustrates the depth and breadth of digitalisation in one financial sector (banking). 

16 Joint Advice of the European Supervisory Authorities, To the European Commission on the need for legislative 
improvements relating to ICT risk management requirements in the EU financial sector, JC 2019 26 (2019).  
17 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2020-commission-work-programme-key-documents_en.  
18 IT spending worldwide by vertical industry in 2014 and 2015, Statista. According to Statista, the financial sector combined 
IT spending worldwide in 2014 and 2015 amounted to US$ 699 billion, well ahead of manufacturing and natural resources 
(US$ 477 bn), media (US$ 429 bn) or governments (US$ 425 bn). Total global IT spending in 2014 and 2015 were estimated 
at US$ 3734 billion and US$ 3509 billion respectively, suggesting that almost 1 in every 5 US$ spent on IT worldwide is in 
the financial sector.  
19 https://www.bis.org/publ/mktc07.pdf  
20 https://money-gate.com/europeans-top-online-banks/.  

5 

 
                                                 
Figure 1. Bank in an open ecosystem context 

Source: Capgemini, World Payments Report, 201921 

Finance  has  not  only  become  largely  digital  throughout  the  whole  sector,  but 
digitalisation  has  also  deepened  interconnections  and  dependencies  within  the  financial 
sector and with infrastructure and service providers (see figure 2). According to ECB, almost 
100  bn  payment  transactions  took  place  in  201822  and  about  500  million  securities 
transactions take place every year.23 

Figure 2. Stylised interconnectedness in the financial sector 

21 https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/World-Payments-Report-2019.pdf.  
22 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/stats/paysec/html/ecb.pis2018~c758d7e773.en.html.  
23 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/payment_statistics/securities/html/index.en.html.  

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
Box 1 – basic concepts 

Source: IMF, Cybersecurity Risk Supervision, 201924 

ICT  risks  are  generally  understood  to  mean  risks  arising  with  the  use  of  network  and 
information  systems  or  communication  technology.  That  includes  malfunctions, 
hardware  and  software  failures,  disruptions  caused  by  human  error,  spam,  viruses  etc., 
misuses  or  other  types  of  adverse  malicious  and  non-malicious  events  that  can 
compromise  the  security  and  resilience  of  such  network  information  systems  or 
communications technologies, the operation and running of processes or the provision of 
services.  For example, major losses are incurred when data or ICT systems lose integrity 
or  become  unavailable,  confidential  data  is  breached  or  physical  ICT  infrastructure  is 
damaged.  

ICT risk management is used to describe the application of risk management processes 
and  mechanisms  to  information  and  communication  technologies  in  order  to  manage 
operational risk of a digital nature. Every firm, in the financial sector and outside, should 
identify risks to its ICT systems and data in order to reduce or manage those risks and 
develop a response plan in the event of a crisis.  

Digital  operational  resilience  refers  to  the  qualitative  processes  that  a  financial 
institution  undergoes  to  build,  maintain  and  review,  on  a  continuous  basis,  the  full 
operational  integrity  of  its  ICT  systems,  for  a  safe  and  compliant  running  of  its 
operations  and  deployment  of  services.  Digital  operational  resilience  complements  the 
approach  embedded  in  existing  financial  services  regulation  to  address  financial 
institutions’ operational risk, which has so far  relied mainly on identifying, monitoring 
and  addressing  risks  through  quantitative  approaches  (in  particular  an  effective  capital 
planning and provisioning to cover for possible losses stemming from those risks).  

Digital operational resilience requires the activation of a set of comprehensive functions, 
policies,  processes  of  ICT  risk  management  that  allow  the  financial  institution  to  be 
prepared  to  protect  its  ICT  systems  and  prevent  disruptions,  to  adapt  to  changing  ICT 
patterns and to  recover from those disruptions  (within certain  limits  of tolerance either 
acceptable  or  known  in  advance).  Digital  operational  resilience  requirements  thus 
address  both 
inherent 
technological  dependencies  to  third  parties  for  the  deployment  of  ICT  supporting 
business functions – in particular in relation to the monitoring of the digital risks posed 
by third parties through outsourcing arrangements.  

internal  organisation  processes  and 

institution’s 

the 

its 

For a financial institution to be able to achieve full operational integrity on an ongoing 
basis,  its  digital  operational  resilience  must  be  the  consequent  result  of  a  synergy  of 
distinct  components:  corporate  governance  requirements,  a  defined  detailed  ICT  risk 
management  framework  (including  incident  reporting  and  testing),  a  comprehensive 
monitoring  of  digital  risk  coming  from  third  party  dependencies  (in  particular  from 
outsourcing), as well as mechanisms for coordination between financial institutions and 
with financial supervisors. 

While  being  a  broader  concept,  the  digital  operational  resilience  fully  integrates  and 
relies on the concept of “security of network and information systems” which is vital to 
ensure a safe and compliant use of any of the financial institution’s technology or data 
dependent  components,  tools  and  processes  to  support  its  business.  The  horizontal 

24https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Departmental-Papers-Policy-Papers/Issues/2019/09/23/Cybersecurity-Risk-

Supervision-46238.  

7 

 
                                                 
framework on cybersecurity, Directive (EU) 2016/1148 concerning measures for a high 
common  level  of  security  of  network  and  information  systems  across  the  Union  (NIS) 
defines the “security of network and information systems” in Article 4(2) as the ability of 
network and information systems to resist, at a given level of confidence, any action that 
compromises  the  availability,  authenticity,  integrity  or  confidentiality  of  stored  or 
transmitted or processed data or the related services offered by, or accessible via, those 
network and information system.  

Firms  operating  in  the  financial  services  industry  are  300  times  as  likely  as  other 
companies to be the target of cyber-attacks.25 This was also acknowledged in a European 
Parliament report.26  

Despite  significant  investment  in  ICT  security  technology,  the  average  cost  to  financial 
institutions resulting from operational incidents keeps on increasing. From 2013 to 2018, the 
total  annual  cost  of  all  types  of  cyberattacks  increased  by  72%.  An  2018  IMF  modelling 
exercise  put  the  base-case  average  aggregated  annual  loss  due  to  cyber-attacks  at  9%  of 
banks’  net  income  globally,  or  around  $100  billion.  In  a  severe  scenario  —  in  which  the 
frequency of cyber-attacks is twice as high as in the past due to greater contagion  — losses 
could be 2½–3½ times as high as this, or $270 billion to $350 billion.27  

ICT security breaches affecting a market participant in the financial sector are prone to 
spread  within  the  financial  system,  as  its  participants  have  numerous  and  very  close 
interconnections.  According  to  the  ESRB,28  the  high  level  of  interconnectedness  across 
financial institutions,  financial markets  and  financial market  infrastructures, and particularly 
the  interdependencies  of  their  IT  systems,  constitute  a  potential  vulnerability  as  a  localised 
cyber  incident  could  quickly  spread  across  markets  and  jurisdictions.  For  example,  ICT 
systems  underpinning payment  operations link together thousands of credit institutions  both 
to  each  other  and  with  payment  services  providers.  Securities  trading  and  settlement  chains 
bring  together  credit  institutions,  investment  firms,  trading  venues,  central  securities 
depositories and central counterparties. ICT security breaches in the financial sector therefore 
affect  not  just a single financial entity or sector and its customers, but  adversely impact  the 
stability  of  the  whole  financial  system.  As  a  result,  a  localised  ICT  threat  or  incident  could 
more likely propagate at a faster pace from any of the ca. 21 000 single financial institutions 
in  Europe  towards  the  entire  financial  system,  unhindered  by  any  geographical  boundaries. 
Therefore, idiosyncratic ICT risks at one entry point can become systemic, especially because 
they can trigger liquidity runs and an overall loss of confidence and trust in financial markets. 

Figure 4. How cyber incidents could affect financial stability 

25 Boston Consulting Group, Reigniting Radical Growth (Global Wealth 2019), page 22.  
26 European Parliament report on Fintech: the influence of technology on the future of the financial sector (2016/2243(INI)). 
27 https://blogs.imf.org/2018/06/22/estimating-cyber-risk-for-the-financial-sector/.  
28 ESRB report Systemic Cyber Risk.  

8 

 
 
                                                 
Source:  Office  of  Financial  Research,  2017 
Financial  Stability  Report.  U.S.  Department  of  the 
Treasury29 

Source: IMF, Cyber Risk Surveillance: A Case Study of 
Singapore, 202030 

A global consensus among authorities has formed that ICT risks are a source of systemic 
risk  in  the  financial  sector.  Recent  studies  and  papers  published  in  Europe31  and  in  the 
U.S.32 demonstrate that ICT risk can threaten the stability of the entire financial system and 
that this type of risk can itself trigger a liquidity crisis and be a source of systemic risk (for 
more details on hypothetical scenarios see Annex 6).  According to the  IMF,33 cyber events 
can  propagate  risks  through  the  entire  financial  system  and  cause  systemic  risks  via  three 
broad  transmission  channels:  risk  concentration,  risk  contagion,  and  erosion  of  confidence. 
Although these channels are similar to the mechanisms of traditional financial shocks, a key 
difference lies in the speed by which risks materialise.  Especially when driven by malicious 
intent (cyber-attacks), ICT risks can spread more quickly and at a larger scale, across sectors 
and beyond geographical borders, triggering liquidity runs and an overall loss of confidence 
and trust in financial markets. Critical functions that the financial sector provides to support 
the  real  economy  (in  particular  deposit-taking  and  savings,  lending,  capital  markets  and 
investments, payments, clearing) may be impaired and may reverberate across other sectors of 
economy, in particular where the financial system itself faces difficulties in absorbing losses 
emerging from cyber-attacks and other large scale operational disruptions.  

29 https://www.financialresearch.gov/financial-stability-reports/2017-financial-stability-report/ 
30 https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020028-print-pdf.ashx.  
31 ESRB report Systemic Cyber Risk demonstrates that an operational disruption can lead to a systemic failure. The ESRB 
developed a conceptual model computing several amplifying factors that, if aligned, propagate the shock of a cyber-attack to 
provoke a systemic event.  
32 The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report on Cyber Risk and the U.S. Financial System: A Pre-Mortem 
Analysis from January 2020 estimates that the impairment of any of the five most active US banks payment network could 
affect 38% of the US payment network. Additionally, if banks respond to uncertainty by refusing to lend (liquidity hoarding), 
the potential impact could reach more than 2.5 times daily GDP. Another paper focusing on the systemic nature of risk is the 
International Monetary Fund’s Cyber Risks Surveillance: A Case Study of Singapore, February 2020. 
33 https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020028-print-pdf.ashx. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY 

2.1.Problem definition 

To  be  able  to  achieve  digital  operational  resilience  and  adapt  rapidly  to  changing  business 
conditions, financial institutions should strengthen their ICT risk management (by developing 
a  set  of  strategies  and  capabilities  around  governance,  identifying  and  protecting  against 
threats,  responding  and  recovering  from  ICT-related  disruptions,  adopting  an  ICT  change 
management  policy,  implementing  an  adaptive  approach  to  incorporate  into  the  framework 
lessons learned from past events, etc.), periodically test the effectiveness  of their preventive 
and  responsive  capabilities  integrated  in  the  ICT  risk  management  framework,  share 
information  with  other  financial  institutions  on  actionable  threat  intelligence  at  strategical, 
tactical and operational level, report any major incident to financial supervisors, and manage 
risks stemming from their dependency on ICT third parties.   

All these measures to address ICT risk are already implemented to a greater or smaller extent, 
and  on  a  mandatory  or  voluntary  basis.  For  instance,  financial  institutions  are  currently 
investing in  ICT systems  to  strengthen their  cyber security. However, these investments  are 
unevenly distributed, and estimates show that about 10% of financial institutions make only 
very  limited  investments34.  Furthermore,  these  investments  currently  take  place  in  an 
environment  where  rules  on  digital  operational  resilience  are  not  harmonised,  and  where 
accordingly supervisory expectations and requirements differ. This makes it more difficult for 
a  firm  to  roll  out  effective,  consistent  and  coherent  responses  aimed  at  addressing  ICT  risk 
across the group as a whole. 

2.1.1.  Fragmentation in managing ICT risks 

Financial institutions in the EU operate within a set of legal requirements governing ICT risk 
alongside soft law measures, notably guidance and supervisory expectations enshrined at EU 
and/or national levels.  

Drivers:  The  legal  framework  covering  ICT  risk  and  operational  resilience  across  the 
financial  sector  is  fragmented  and  not  fully  consistent.  The  regulatory  provisions  were 
developed at different moments in time, and seek to address the main risks identified at the 
time,  hence  they  vary  significantly  across  financial  services  sectors  (see  Annex  2).  Some 
sectors (such as the Payment Services Directive – PSD2 or the Central Securities Depositories 
Regulation – CSDR) have specific and granular provisions for digital operational resilience. 
However, in other sectors (such as the Capital Requirements Directive – CRD IV, Solvency II 
for  Insurance  and  Reinsurance,  Credit  Rating  Agencies  Regulation,  Institutions  for 
Occupational Retirement Directive – IORPS), the rules on ICT risk are scarce or limited only 
to  high-level  generic  provisions.  National  requirements  and  supervisory  guidance  may  fill 
some  of  these  gaps,  but  not  all  and  not  necessarily  in  a  consistent  manner.  ICT  risk  is 
addressed  through  operational  risk  requirements  in  EU  financial  services  legislation,  which 
are often and traditionally mainly quantitative (i.e. setting a capital requirement to cover the 
risk)  rather  than  providing  qualitative  requirements  aimed  at  protection,  detection, 
containment, recovery and repair capabilities from operational incidents and failure. 

34 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/cybersecurity-maturity-financial-institutions-cyber-
risk.html.  

10 

 
                                                 
In  addition  to  the  financial  services  legislation,  a  general  framework  covering  a  number  of 
sectors and service providers governs the security of network and information systems under 
the NIS Directive. This is a cross-sectoral directive covering a number of economic activities 
deemed  critical  (see  Annex  2),  and  that  are  rather  diverse  in  their  nature  and  market/cross-
border  integration.  NIS  being  a  minimum  harmonisation  directive,  it  has  led  to  diversity  in 
national  transposition  Its  design  revolves  around  the  identification  at  national  level  of 
operators  of  essential  services  (OESs)  and  setting  rules  on  “state  of  the  art”  security35  and 
incident  notification.  For  financial  services,  the  NIS  Directive  covers  OES  in  three  areas  of 
the  financial  sector,  namely  credit  institutions,  trading  venues  and  central  counterparties 
(CCPs).  Under  a  lex  specialis  clause,  EU  sector-specific  rules  take  precedence  over  NIS 
requirements  when  they  are  at  least  equivalent  in  effect  to  the  NIS  requirements.  However, 
difficulties  have  arisen  in  this  interplay,  as  well  as  divergences  in  implementing  the  NIS 
Directive to the financial sector. In its 2017 Communication,36 the Commission specified that 
PSD2  is  lex  specialis  for  both  security  requirements  and  incident  notification  and  that  the 
Markets  in  financial  instruments  directive  (MiFID)  and  the  European  Market  Infrastructure 
Regulation  (EMIR)  are  lex  specialis  for  security  requirements,  which  means  they  take 
precedence  over  the  requirements  of  the  NIS  Directive.  At  the  same  time,  Member  States 
could  add  and  some  have  added  in  their  transposition  additional  sectors  and  national 
requirements at their own discretion.37 It needs to be clarified that Directive 2008/114/EC on 
the  protection  of  critical  infrastructures  (CIP),  according  to  which  Member  States  need  to 
identify  and  designate  European  critical  infrastructures  and  ensure  risk  assessments  and 
reporting of incidents, does not cover the financial sector.38   

Problem: Both the lack of specific ICT risk requirements in some subsectors and differences 
between such ICT risk requirements across financial subsectors and Member States leads to 
inconsistencies  in  protection,  detection,  containment,  response  and  recovery  capabilities  for 
ICT related incidents  between sectors and Member States. This  leaves parts of the financial 
sector  exposed  to  ICT  related  incident  risks,  without  frameworks  in  place  to  address  and 
manage  these  risks  and  makes  the  playing  field  uneven  across  the  single  market,  with 
operators  in  some  Member  States  being  subject  to  specific  requirements,  whereas  their 
competitors  in  other  Member  States  are  not  subject  to  the  same  requirements.  Further 
fragmentation and thus difficulties in compliance emerge for those financial institutions that 
operate on different financial sub-markets and have thus obtained several authorisations.  

Consequences:  The  current  disparity  in  rules  puts  at  risk  the  financial  sector’s  stability  and 
integrity,  as  despite  the  interconnectedness  of  all  parts  of  the  financial  sector,  risks  are 

35 According to Article 14(1) of the NIS Directive, Member States ensure that operators ‘take appropriate and proportionate 
technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which 
they use in their operations. Having regard to the state of the art, those measures shall ensure a level of security of network 
and information systems appropriate to the risk posed’.  
36 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Making the most of NIS – towards the 
effective implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network 
and information systems across the Union, COM/2017/0476 final.  
37 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the consistency of the approaches 
taken by Member States in the identification of operators of essential services in accordance with Article 23(1) of Directive 
2016/1148/EU on security of network and information systems, COM/2019/546 final. Please also check Box 1 in section 2.2 
for the difference between the basic concepts used in this impact assessment and the NIS definitions.  
38 On interdependencies between critical infrastructures in different sectors and the possible need to extend the scope of the 
Directive, please see the European Commission’s evaluation of Directive 2008/114 on Critical Infrastructure Protection of 23 
July 2019 (SWD(2019)308 final). 

11 

 
                                                 
addressed and managed inconsistently across subsectors. As pointed out by the ESRB,39 due 
to  the  highly  interconnected  nature  of  the  financial  system,  the  uneven  level  of  ICT  risk 
management  can  quickly  cause  problems  in  other  segments  of  the  financial  sector. 
Furthermore, the current disparity of rules segments the single market for financial services, 
subjecting competitors to different requirements both in terms of scope and intensity.  

The responses to the public consultation have shown extensive support to strengthen the ICT 
risk  management  framework  for  all  financial  institutions.  Most  respondents  insisted  that 
common standards should be principle and risk based and allow for proportionate application. 
They  should  ensure  coherence  in  areas  where  currently,  given  the  lack  of  more  EU 
harmonisation,  many  financial  institutions  have  voluntarily  established  and  implemented 
security measures to manage and mitigate ICT risks, following national rules, EU soft rules 
(e.g. EBA guidelines) or global standards (e.g. International Organization for Standardization 
ISO). 

2.1.2.  Ineffective reporting of and limited awareness about threats and incidents  

Under  regulatory  and/or  supervisory  requirements,  financial  institutions  are  subject  to  a 
number  of  ICT  and  operational  incident  reporting  requirements  to  different  authorities  (see 
type  1  in  table  1  below).  What  use  authorities  can  make  of  the  incident  notification 
information  they  receive,  and  whether  and  how  they  will  share  it  with  other  authorities  or 
market participants, depends on the regulatory and supervisory requirements under which the 
information is notified and the mandates of the respective authorities. Given the cross-border 
dimension  of  ICT  risks  and  incidents,  co-operation  among  competent  authorities,  including 
law enforcement where applicable, and exchanging relevant information (see type 2 in table 1 
below)  in  the  incident  reports  they  receive  is  necessary  to  effectively  manage  incidents  or 
their  consequences.  Lastly,  information  sharing  among  financial  institutions  (see  type  3  in 
table 1 below) on threats and vulnerabilities contributes to increase awareness of ICT security 
and operational threats and to enhance the capacity to prevent threats from materialising into 
breaches or incidents, contain their effects or recover from them more efficiently. 

The table below summarises the three main types of communication presented above: 

Table 1 -  Main types of communication on ICT-related incidents and threats 

Incident reporting (type 1) 

financial institution → competent authority 

Exchange of information and 
cooperation (type 2) 

competent authority → competent authority  
(also cross-border) 

Information sharing (type 3) 

financial institution → financial institution  
(possible collaboration with competent authorities) 

Lack of incident reporting requirements in some financial subsectors 

Few  pieces  of  financial  services  legislation  contain  specific  provisions  on  ICT  incident 
reporting to authorities at either national or European level; most are silent on this. In 
the  area  of  payments,  PSD2  offers  the  most  complete  framework  mandating  the  immediate 
reporting of an incident to the competent authority. It also enables - through EBA guidelines - 

39 The high level of interconnectedness across financial institutions, financial markets and financial market infrastructures, 
and particularly the interdependencies of their IT systems, constitute a potential vulnerability as a localised cyber incident 
could quickly spread across markets and jurisdictions. ESRB report Systemic Cyber Risk.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
a classification and evaluation of reports, which creates a taxonomy that is useful in making 
incidents  comparable.  Investment  firms  engaged  in  algorithmic  trading  report  material 
breaches in their electronic security measures,40 and trading venues report incidents of misuse 
or unauthorised access. Data reporting service providers also report to competent authorities 
and notify clients affected by the breach. However, the financial services legislation covering 
most other areas (for example governing credit institutions, insurance undertakings or central 
securities depositories) does not establish reporting requirements. At the same time, the NIS 
Directive  requires  some  of  these  institutions  (certain  credit  institutions,  CCPs  and  trading 
venues  identified  as  OES,  but  not  insurance  undertakings,  central  securities  depositories  or 
asset  managers)  to  notify  incidents  to  the  national  NIS  authority.  Whether  there  is  a  single 
national NIS authority or whether sectoral authorities such as financial supervisors act as NIS 
authority  in  a  Member  State  depends  on  national  transposition  and  application  of  the  NIS 
Directive.41  Incidents  amounting  to  breaches  of  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation 
(GDPR) must be notified to data protection authorities. 

Drivers:  Since  most  pieces  of  EU  financial  services  legislation  remain  silent  or  contain 
general wording on reporting of ICT-related incidents, some areas completely lack reporting 
to  financial  supervisors  or  NIS  authorities.  To  fill  these  gaps,  in  some  areas  some  financial 
supervisors have set up their own reporting schemes. For example, the SSM implemented its 
own  set  of  requirements  for  its  supervised  banks,  which  comes  on  top  of  national  financial 
services  requirements,  requirements  under  PSD2,  application  of  the  NIS  Directive  or  the 
GDPR.  

Problems: The lack of consistent information on the nature and consequences of ICT-related 
incidents  impedes  the proper calibration and implementation  of prudential  requirements and 
the development of suitable policy responses. At the same time, it means supervisors have an 
incomplete  overview  of  the  nature,  frequency,  significance  and  impact  of  incidents. 
Moreover,  with  no  incident  reporting  in  place,  cybercriminal  incidents  remain  unreported, 
information  cannot  be exchanged from financial  supervisors to  law enforcement authorities, 
and  that  ultimately  impedes  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  perpetrators  and  overall 
diminishes the deterrence of cybercrime.    

Consequences:  Notwithstanding  ad  hoc  supervisory  initiatives,  the  lack  of  consistent 
information  on  significant  ICT  related  incidents  in  the  financial  system  as  a  whole  reduces 
public  authorities’  capability  to  assess  and  monitor  risks  that  may  affect  the  stability  of  the 
financial  system,  and  to  impose  on  financial  institutions  the  necessary  measures  to  prevent 
ICT-related incidents or limit their impact. There have been cases where financial supervisors 
were not made aware in time of cyber risks affecting other sectors. This undermines effective 
supervision  and,  ultimately,  the  objective  of  maintaining  financial  stability  and  market 
integrity.  

Overlapping incident reporting 

40 According to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/589 of 19 July 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the organisational 
requirements of investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading, investment firms have to promptly inform the competent 
authority of any material breaches of their physical and electronic security measures and provide an incident report to the 
competent authority, indicating the nature of the incident, the measures taken following the incident and the initiatives taken 
to avoid similar incidents from recurring. 
41 According to Commission’s data, around half of the Member States have designated their financial supervisors as the NIS 
authority for the financial sector, and other sectoral authorities for the other NIS sectors. The remaining half of the Member 
States have centralised it in a single national cybersecurity authority.   

13 

 
                                                 
Drivers:  Divergent  transposition  and  implementation  occurs  mostly  when  dealing  with 
minimum  harmonisation  directives,  which  are  gold-plated  by  additional  –more  stringent- 
national rules. In addition, different frameworks give rise to multiple reporting obligations for 
the same ICT-related incident by a single financial institution. This may be necessary due to 
different angles under which the impact of  an  ICT breach  can be  analysed (e.g.  an incident 
may  impact  personal  data  and,  as  such,  it  is  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  data  protection 
authorities  for  purposes  other  than  the  financial  risk  angle  of  financial  supervision).  This 
translates into financial institutions in fact having to report the same or different information 
on the same incident, under different legislation and to different authorities. For instance, as 
also  revealed in  the public consultation,  a bank may have to  report the same incident  under 
the  NIS  Directive  (if  it  has  been  identified  as  an  OES  and  if  the  incident  has  a  significant 
impact on the continuity of the bank’s services), the SSM incident reporting framework (if it 
is a significant bank), under PSD2 (if the incident involves the payments side), under GDPR 
(if  it  affected  the  personal  data  of  its  customers)  and  under  any  other  applicable  national 
legislation. 

Problem: Some financial  institutions face  complex, overlapping  and potentially inconsistent 
reporting requirements for the same incident. The problem is amplified by  differences in the 
taxonomy  of  ICT/operational  incidents,  reporting  timeframes,42  data  sets,  templates  or 
applicable  thresholds  (triggering  the  reporting  of  an  incident),  as  well  as  in  the  general 
approaches  to  consumer  notification.  Finally,  the  fragmentation  becomes  even  more 
challenging  for  cross-border  financial  institutions  that  operate  outside  the  EU  and  have  to 
comply  with  additional  requirements  stemming  from  regulations  from  third  country 
jurisdictions.  Responding  companies  to  the  public  consultation  are  currently  subject  to 
multiple  ICT  and  security  incident  reporting  requirements  that  either  stem  from  regulation 
(e.g.  GDPR,  eIDAS,  national  rules  transposing  PSD2,  NIS,  or  other  national  laws), 
supervisory  expectations  (e.g.  SSM,  TARGET2)  or  industry  best  practices.  A  concrete 
example would be the case of a big bank that has been identified under the NIS transposition 
as operator of essential services in one Member State and is also licenced as payment service 
provider under PSD2. In this case, incident reporting obligations deriving from the legislation 
overlap if the lex specialis clause is not upheld in that Member State; to this overlap, one has 
to  add  the  incident  notification  under  the  SSM  framework  for  significant  banks.  The  bank 
should not  report major  incidents  to  the NIS authority in  that  Member State because it  also 
operates  under  PSD2  (and  the  lex  specialis  is  supposed  to  do  away  with  the  overlap). 
However, because the NIS transposition has been quite fragmented, it must report the same 
incident  to  the  financial  supervisor,  to  the  NIS  authority  and  to  the  SSM,  under  different 
criteria  and  patterns.  A  big  subsidiary  of  this  bank  in  another  Member  State,  for  example, 
even  if  providing  services  deemed  essential  under  the  national  transposition  of  the  NIS 
Directive, would not have to report to the NIS authority because the transposition of the NIS 
Directive took the lex specialis into account. 

Consequences: Having to report the same incident to multiple authorities leads to excessive 
administrative  burden  and  compliance  costs  at  times  when  financial  institutions  must  also 
focus resources on managing and containing the incident and recovering from it. Respondents 
to  the  public  consultations  stressed  that  the  myriad  of  different  requirements  creates  a 
significant compliance burden for them without a corresponding improvement in security. In 
addition,  all  these  different  criteria  lead  to  fragmentation  in  the  overall  incident  reporting 
requirements,  possibly  amplified  by  any  different  interpretations  across  legislations,  with 

42 For instance, whereas reporting an incident under the NIS Directive should be done without “undue delay”, the deadline is 
72 hours under GDPR, 4 hours under PSD2 and 48 hours under Target2. 

14 

 
                                                 
authorities  having  only  partial  insights  into  how  ICT  and  operational  incidents  affect  the 
financial sector.  

Absence  at  EU  level  of  trusted  mechanisms  enabling  cyber  threat  intelligence  sharing 
between financial institutions   

Drivers:  With  cyber,  ICT  and  operational  threat  landscapes  becoming  complex  and 
sophisticated,  good  detection  and  prevention  measures  depend  to  a  great  extent  on  regular 
threat  and  vulnerability  intelligence  sharing  between  financial  institutions.  However,  a 
number  of  factors  inhibit  intelligence  and  information  sharing  in  relation  to  threats,  in 
particular a lack of trust and of suitable mechanisms and arrangements. Financial institutions 
also  express  doubts  or  concerns  about  whether  information  sharing  is  legally  possible  and 
commercially  feasible  between  peers.  In  particular,  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
cited  concerns  over  compatibility  with  data  protection  and  anti-trust  requirements,  or  even 
liability (for more details see point 3.2 of Annex 3). Hesitations about what can be shared  –
other than incidents- with other market participants, with competent authorities, e.g. financial 
supervisors  in  their  oversight  function,  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Cybersecurity 
(ENISA) for analytical input or Europol for  law enforcement purposes, leads to information 
being withheld. 

Problem: As the ICT risk dimension has only gradually and partially been addressed across 
the  EU  financial  services  legislation,  the  extent  of  information  sharing  among  financial 
institutions in relation to threats, as well as the quality of such information (when shared) is 
limited,  fragmented  and  mostly  local  (national  initiatives),  with  no  consistent  EU-wide 
information  sharing  arrangements  tailored  for  the  real  needs  of  the  financial  sector  and 
authorities. Since financial institutions cannot leverage in a collective manner their individual 
knowledge  and  practical  experience,  their  understanding  of  the  cyber  threats  also  remains 
fragmented and isolated. This  prevents  threat-informed decisions  to  help  build up defensive 
capabilities,  threat  detection  techniques  and  mitigation  strategies.  The  lack  of  correlation 
between  different  types  of  cyber  information  and  intelligence  from  multiple  sources,  for 
instance indicators of compromise such as system artefacts or observables associated with an 
attack,  motives  of  threat  perpetrators,  and  security  alerts,  which  weakens  financial 
institutions’ efforts to successfully withstand malicious attacks.  

Consequences:  Insufficient  information  sharing and cooperation on cyber threat  intelligence 
at  strategical,  tactical  and  operational  level  (on,  for  example,  indicators  of  compromise  or 
techniques used by cyber criminals) ultimately prevent individual financial institutions from 
adequately  assessing,  monitoring,  defending  against  and  responding  to  cyber  threats. 
Moreover, the lack of information sharing in trusted environments undermines the ability of 
the financial community to prevent and respond collectively by quickly limiting the spread of 
cyber  risks  and  operational  threats  and  impeding  potential  contagion  throughout  financial 
channels.  

2.1.3.  Limited and uncoordinated testing 

To achieve robust digital operational resilience, in line with international  standards (e.g. the 
G7 Fundamental Elements for Threat-Led Penetration Testing (TLPT))43, institutions should 

43 The G-7  Fundamental  Elements  for  Threat-Led  Penetration  Testing  (G7FE-TLPT) provide entities  with  a  guide  for  
the  assessment  of  their  resilience  against malicious cyber incidents through  simulation and  a  guide  for  authorities  
considering  the  use  of  Threat-Led  Penetration Testing   (TLPT)   within   their   jurisdictions. The core objectives of the 

15 

 
                                                 
 
regularly  test  their  ICT  systems  and  governance  as  to  the  effectiveness  of  their  preventive, 
detection, response and recovery capabilities, to uncover and address potential vulnerabilities. 
Responding to differences across and within financial sectors regarding the maturity level of 
financial  institutions’  cybersecurity  preparedness,  testing  should  include  a  wide  variety  of 
tools and actions,  ranging  from  simple  assessment  of basic requirements (e.g.  gap  analyses, 
compliance reviews, vulnerability scans) to more advanced testing (e.g. TLPT for significant 
financial institutions capable of carrying out such tests)44. The majority of respondents to the 
public  consultation  agree  that  financial  entities  should  be  required  to  perform  a  baseline 
testing/assessment of their ICT systems and tools. 

Drivers: Regarding the current testing exercises carried out in the EU, the problem is twofold: 
(1)  in  some  financial  subsectors,  there  are  multiple  and  uncoordinated  penetration  and 
resilience  testing  frameworks  and  requirements  that  address  the  same  issues  in  a  different 
way, with the subsequent duplication of costs for the tested financial institutions and no cross-
border  recognition  of results and (2) other subsectors lack penetration and resilience testing 
frameworks.  

To map the resilience testing practices in the EU, the EBA conducted a survey on supervisory 
practices  on  cybersecurity,  which  identified  many  differences  in  testing  requirements,  the 
process of testing, cross border cooperation on such testing and sharing of the testing results. 
The survey revealed that only a few authorities organised penetration testing or gave guidance 
on  such  testing.  Most  respondents  indicated  not  having  pen-tested  financial  institutions’ 
vulnerability and resilience to cyber risks.   

In  2018,  the  ECB  published  a  framework  for  threat  intelligence-based  ethical  red  teaming 
(TIBER–EU). This is a common framework that delivers a controlled, bespoke, intelligence-
led  red  team  test  of  financial  institutions’  critical  live  production  systems.  TIBER-EU  is 
designed to be adopted by competent authorities in any jurisdiction, on a voluntary basis and 
for a variety of prospective uses, in particular as a supervisory or oversight tool, for financial 
stability purposes, or as a catalyst in collaboration with market participants.  

Although  a  number  of  Member  States  and  supervisors  have  developed  and/or  are  in  the 
process  of implementing digital  operational  resilience testing frameworks, some inspired by 
TIBER-EU,  the  frameworks  present  certain  similarities,  but  also  differences  in  terms  of 
scope, testing methods and the requirements or authorities involved.  

Problems: Without the establishment of at least a common set of rules in guiding these tests, 
the  frameworks  are  not  applied  coherently.  Moreover,  there  is  no  mutual  acceptance  of  the 
testing  results  between  Member  States,  and  financial  institutions  active  in  multiple 
jurisdictions  are  subject  to  multiple  testing  frameworks  and  requirements  on  the  same  ICT 
infrastructure.  Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  face  issues  with  overlapping  or 
diverging testing obligations for ICT and security tests by different authorities, which tie up 
considerable resources. In many financial subsectors there is also no knowledge exchange at 

G7FE-TLPTare to enhance and assess the cyber resilience of entities and the financial sector more generally. See: 
https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/764690/792725ab3e779617a2fe28a03c303940/mL/2018-10-24-g-7-fundamental-
elements-for-threat-led-penetration-testing-data.pdf. TLPT is a controlled attempt to compromise the cyber resilience of an 
entity by simulating the tactics, techniques and procedures of real-life threat perpetrators. It is based on targeted threat 
intelligence and focuses on an entity’s people, processes and technology, with minimal fore-knowledge and impact on 
operations. In some jurisdictions this may be referred as Ethical Red Teaming. 
44 The different testing tools should not be sector specific, but instead differ across and within financial subsectors depending 
on financial institutions’ level of cyber security preparedness. 

16 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
EU level between competent authorities, which means best practices are not shared between 
financial institutions or between them and competent authorities.  In addition, where there is 
no  testing,  vulnerabilities  remain  undetected  and  can  and  will  be  exploited  by  threat 
perpetrators.  

Consequences:  Uncoordinated  testing  can  potentially  segment  the  single  market  and 
undermine  the  single  or  coordinated  supervisory  approach.  At  the  same  time,  the  lack  of 
cross-border  acceptance  of  test  results  among  supervisory  authorities  generates  additional 
burden  and  costs  for  financial  institutions.  This  makes  the  level  playing  field  uneven,  as 
evidenced by the responses to the public consultation (for more details see point 3.3 of Annex 
3). When there is no testing and vulnerabilities hence remain undetected, the financial sector 
stability and integrity is at higher risk. 

2.1.4.  ICT third-party risks 

Financial  institutions  have  increased  the  use  of  third-party  providers  (TPPs),  in 
particularly  for  the  provision  of  ICT  products  and  services.  Financial  institutions  enter 
into  contractual  relationships  with  ICT  TPPs  whereby  they  outsource  the  performance  of 
some of their operational functions. In particular, the use of cloud services has recently been 
the focus of much attention. According to the FSB,45 the deployment of cloud technologies in 
the financial service industry is still in an early phase, with around 70% of financial services 
companies  reporting  in  a  recent  survey  that  they  were  only  at  the  initial  or  trial  and  testing 
stage.  However,  the  use  of  cloud  services  is  patchy  across  different  financial  operators  and 
financial  subsectors,  and  there  is  high  potential  for  growth.  Markets  and  Markets46  predicts 
that the financial cloud market will grow at a rate of 24% to reach more than $29 billion by 
2021. A recent Bloomberg survey of Europe’s top banks revealed that 22 of 22 respondents 
use Amazon, Microsoft, or Google47. According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), 
Amazon  Web  Services  have  almost  50%  of  market  share,  followed  by  Microsoft  Azzure, 
Google, IBM or Alibaba. 

Figure 5. Market share of ICT vendors in financial service industry, 2018 

45 https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P091219-2.pdf.  
46 https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/finance-cloud-market-1053.html.  
47 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-06/european-banks-store-their-sensitive-data-on-american-clouds.  

17 

 
 
                                                 
Source: Apps Run The World48 

The dependence on ICT third parties was also highlighted in the ESAs joint technical advice, 
which  suggested  an  appropriate  oversight  framework  be  applicable  to  the  activities  of  ICT 
TPPs that are critical service providers to financial institutions.49 The extent and nature of this 
reliance has amplified in recent years, driven by an effort from financial institutions to adapt 
to  the  digital  economy,  boost  efficiency  and  remain  competitive,  as  well  as  meet  consumer 
demand.  

The main incentives to rely on third parties for the provision of ICT products or services are 
performance, reliance, elasticity of ICT resource provisioning and cost-effectiveness. The aim 
of  financial  institutions  when  accessing  innovative  technologies  offered  ‘as  a  service’,  for 
instance  cloud  adoption,  may  be  to  source  alternatives  for  outdated,  on-site  legacy  ICT 
infrastructure,  which  can  be  very  costly  to  maintain  and  upgrade,  and  less  flexible  in 
accommodating  the  institution’s  ICT  needs  to  embrace  innovation  and  ensure  security.  The 
use  of  ICT  TPPs  by  financial  institutions  is  not  limited  to  cloud  service  providers.  Most 
financial institutions also use specialised ICT TPPs for products and services that they cannot 
develop in-house (e.g. specialised software, hardware, etc.), or where such in-house features 
would fall below the standards that TPPs are able to provide.  

The operations of ICT TPPs entail significant risks for financial institutions (for example 
in  handling  financial  data).  Almost  60%  of  surveyed  companies  experienced  a  data  breach 
caused by  a third party,  according  to  the Ponemon  Institute.50 Such risks  are predominantly 
micro-prudential  and, if  at  all addressed by the existing regulatory framework, addressed to 
varying  degrees:  governance  risks,  operational  risks  (security  and  privacy,  integration, 
portability,  and  interoperability  between  systems),  vendor  lock-in,51  confidential  data  risks, 
fourth  party  and  supply  chain  risks  (given  the  increasing  tendency  of  some  TPPs  to  sub-
contract  parts of the services they provide to  additional vendors), legal  and compliance  risk 
(e.g. when operational incidents or poor performance at a TPP prevent a financial institution 
from  complying  with  its  regulatory  reporting  obligations),  reputational  risks  and  lack  of 
explainability.52   

Moreover, the widespread use of a limited number of closely connected ICT TPPs by a large 
number of financial institutions can lead to macro-prudential risks, such as concentration and 
systemic risks. This can adversely impact financial stability in the event that one or more of 
the  critical  providers  experience  a  major  disruption  in  providing  their  services.  That 
conclusion  stands  irrespective  of  the  root  cause  (e.g.  be  it  a  malfunction  or  a  major  cyber-
attack).  

48 https://www.appsruntheworld.com/top-10-banking-and-financial-services-software-vendors-and-market-forecast/ 
49  ICT  TPPs  in  this  respect  include,  for  example,  data  providers  and  cloud  services  providers.  The  designation  of  critical 
TPPs  would  be  based  on  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  criteria  (e.g.  number  and  systemic  significance  of  institution 
customers  (size)  with  domestic/regional/global  impact,  interconnectedness,  substitutability,  multi-jurisdictional  activity, 
complexity, etc.).  
502018 Data Risk in the Third Party Ecosystem Study from Ponemon Institute  
https://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/Data%20Risk%20in%20the%20Third%20Party%20Ecosystem_BuckleySandler
%20LLP%20and%20Treliant%20Risk%20Advisors%20LLC%20Ponemon%20Research%202016%20-%20FINAL2.pdf.  
51 Vendor lock-in happens when financial institutions are dependent on a single TPP for a relevant service and cannot switch 
to another TPP without substantial costs, substantial inconvenience or in an appropriate period of time. It can amplify when 
only one or a small number of third parties dominate the provision of a given service and/or if institutions do not mitigate 
their dependence on these third parties with an effective documented and tested exit strategy. 
52  Lack  of  explainability  (also  called  ‘black  box’)  relates  to  the  inability  of  financial  institutions  to  understand  or  explain 
actions, decisions or recommendations made or facilitated by TPPs, such as Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning. 

18 

 
                                                 
Limitations and difficulties for financial institutions to ensure compliance with the regulatory 
framework on outsourcing and further sub-outsourcing arrangements  

Drivers: As financial institutions become more and more dependent on products and services 
provided  by  ICT  TPPs,  they  also  face  higher  levels  of  risk  exposure,  both  of  a  micro  and 
macro prudential nature, towards providers outside the financial sector, who are unregulated 
and  thus  unmonitored  by  financial  supervisors.  The  burden  for  ensuring  TPPs’  compliance 
with the regulatory framework remains on the financial institutions. Without prejudice to their 
contractual freedom, the regulatory framework requires financial institutions to remain fully 
responsible  for  their  outsourcing  arrangements;  some  must  draw  them  in  writing  and  notify 
financial  supervisors  of  their  outsourcing  arrangements  and  sometimes  get  the  supervisors’ 
approval  (please  see  section  4  of  Annex  2).  That  is  because  outsourcing  entails  critical  or 
important  operations  or  functions  that  financial  institutions  should  in  principle  deploy  in 
house and because such business arrangements impact financial institutions’ compliance with 
their prudential regulatory obligation to monitor and address operational risks.  

One of the most complicated problems that financial institutions and supervisors acknowledge 
today  is  their  lack  of  ability  or  actual  power  to  monitor  risks  in  the  sub-outsourcing  value 
chain.  In  addition,  financial  institutions  often  have  difficulties  in  negotiating  written 
agreements  tailored  to  their  prudential  legal  and  regulatory  requirements  or  cannot  fully 
enforce rights of access  as stipulated in contracts with  ICT TPPs. Their initial contract with 
the TPP often does not provide for sufficient safeguards on how the sub-outsourcing process 
should  be  monitored  (i.e.  no  notification  of  the  sub-outsourced  services,  lack  of  relevant 
information  on  the  type  of  function  further  sub-outsourced  or  on  the  actual  location  or 
jurisdiction where the sub-outsourcing is performed). This may be the result of a high degree 
of  asymmetry  in  negotiating  positions  between  financial  institutions  and  hyper-scale 
technology providers, which leads to contractual limitations or gaps (e.g. on rights to access, 
audit and obtain information from TPPs).  

The  public  consultation  highlighted  a  large  number  of  additional  challenges  during 
contractual  negotiations  between  financial  institutions  and  ICT  TPPs,  such  as  the 
geographical  storage  of  data,  sub-contractor  approval  and  transparency,  information  rights, 
exit  strategies,  post-termination  assistance,  resolution  requirements,  business  continuity 
clauses, etc. (see section 3.4 on page 10 of Annex 3).  At the same time, supervisors are not 
getting the insights they need into the solutions and risks presented by ICT TPPs. According 
to the Ponemon Institute, companies are not able to (i) confirm whether third parties have had 
a  data  breach  or  cyber-attack  involving  their  sensitive  and  confidential  information,  (ii) 
determine the number of third parties with  access  to  their confidential  information,  and (iii) 
verify whether the third party can sufficiently respond to a data breach or cyber-attack. 

Problem:  When the contractual relationship entails outsourcing and sub-outsourcing of core 
functions or operations of a financial institution, this lack of control may impair the continuity 
and  security  of  the  performance  of  the  financial  services  that  are  outsourced.  Currently,  the 
indirect  supervision  performed  by  financial  supervisors  over  the  supervised  financial 
institutions,  who  in  turn  ought  to  have  robust  contractual  terms  and  conditions  in  their 
outsourcing arrangements guaranteeing the performance (or in its absence, the liability) of the 
outsourced activities or functions by TTPs does not address concentration and systemic risks 
posed by ICT TPPs to the financial system. 

Consequences:  The  inability  to  enshrine  contractual  rights  tailored  to  the  prudential 
requirements for outsourcing that financial institutions must abide to, the difficulty to enforce 

19 

 
these  rights,  and  the  lack  of  supervisory  insights  into  the  activities  of  financial  institutions 
which  are  provided  by  ICT  TTPs  (with  all  risks  associated)  expose  financial  institutions 
individually, and the financial system as a whole, to operational risks which, even though they 
originate  at  a  third  party  (or  further  along  the  sub-outsourcing  chain),  have  direct 
consequences  on  the  actual  performance  of  financial  institutions,  and  hence  on  the  stability 
and integrity of the financial service or system.  These risks remain outside the purview and 
perimeter of proper, direct and consistent EU financial services regulation and supervision.   

Unmonitored ICT third-party providers 

Drivers:  Currently,  there  is  no  EU-wide53  direct  oversight  framework  to  enable  financial 
supervisors to effectively monitor the activities of critical ICT TPPs in relation to the services 
they  provide  to  financial  operators.54  Some  steps  were  taken  under  the  EBA  guidelines  on 
outsourcing to require banks, investment firms, payment and e-money institutions to maintain 
and update a register of all outsourcing arrangements with cloud service providers. Financial 
institutions  and  cloud  service  providers  joined  forces  to  develop  a  template  for  the  register, 
but the register will be available only as of December 2021 and it has some limitations (e.g. it 
covers only outsourcing arrangements with a subset of ICT TPPs - cloud service providers, it 
has a limited coverage of the supply  chain, no  common templates for data reporting). Most 
importantly, the register applies only to the financial entities mentioned above and there is no 
comparable  inventory  or  register  applicable  to  other  financial  institutions.  This  could  also 
result in asymmetries in the volume of information available to supervisory authorities.  

According  to  the  results  of  the  public  consultation,  a  typical  European  financial  institution 
accesses over 1,000 different cloud services, many unapproved and unlikely to be monitored. 
Employees and partner organisations may use ICT systems that are not monitored, managed 
or secured. These third parties could greatly increase operational risks and yet the competent 
authorities’  oversight  over  some  ICT  (cloud)  TPPs  is  inadequate.  Furthermore,  some 
respondents complain that relevant ICT TPPs are not regulated within the EU. 

The above-mentioned increased reliance of financial institutions on ICT TPPs is only partially 
addressed in EU legislation via requirements imposed on financial institutions to notify their 
outsourcing  arrangements  to  supervisors  and  the  general  principle  that  financial  institutions 
retain  full  responsibility  for  their  contractual  relationships.  Higher  risk  exposure  and  the 
concentration and systemic risks originated at the unregulated entity offering the outsourced 
service or platform are not explicitly captured by the current legal framework. This translates 

53  To  be  noted  that  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  some  jurisdictions  do  have  arrangements  for  financial  supervisors  to 
oversee/supervise third party providers. For instance, in the US, the Bank Service Company  Act governs permissible bank 
service company activities, regulatory approval of bank investments in service companies, and regulation and examination of 
bank  service  companies.  The  Board  of  Governors  of  the  Federal  Reserve  System  (FRS),  the  Federal  Deposit  Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (each individually, Agency, and collectively, 
Agencies)  have  statutory  authority  to  supervise  third-party  service  providers  entering  into  contracts  with  their  regulated 
financial institutions. The "Supervision of Technology Service Providers" booklet (TSP Booklet), of the FFIEC Information 
Technology  Examination  Handbook  (IT  Handbook),  addresses  and  outlines  the  Agencies'  risk-based  supervisory  program, 
and while technology service providers (TSP) examinations generally focus on underlying information technology (IT) risk, 
the risk assessment also considers all business lines in which TSPs engage to ensure that all covered services are effectively 
included.  The  Agencies  conduct  IT-related  examinations  of  financial  institutions  and  their  TSPs  based  on  the  guidelines 
contained in the FFIEC IT Handbook. Source: EBA discussion note on TPPs oversight framework, SCOP 2020 30, March 
2020. 
54 According to NIS, cloud service providers (as one category of digital service providers falling under the NIS Directive) are 
subject  to  ex  post  supervision  carried  out  by  the  designated  NIS  authority.  The  supervision  is  limited  to  the  security  and 
notification requirements imposed on them by the NIS Directive.  

20 

 
                                                 
in  practice  into  different  supervisory  approaches  that  are  based  on  the  supervisors’  general 
mandate to monitor operational risks:  

(1)  some  supervisory  authorities  are  hesitant  to  allow  financial  institutions  to  enter  into 
contractual  arrangements  with  ICT  TPPs,  as  supervisors  either  have  insufficient 
insight  into  whether  ICT  third  parties  present  risks  or  do  not  always  possess  all  the 
tools they need to analyse and oversee the impact of these third-party dependencies; 

(2)  other supervisory authorities, although they allow such contractual arrangements, still 
require financial institutions to  obtain approval  before outsourcing to  ICT TPPs  and 
impose diverging requirements on financial institutions.  

Problem:  In  the  absence  of  EU  or  national  rules  tackling  risk  exposures  to  critical  entities 
outside  the  financial  sector,  that  have  the  potential  to  jeopardize  overall  financial  stability, 
either  risks  remain  unaddressed  or  diverging  and  unsatisfactory  administrative  practices 
emerge. Supervisors are not equipped with a sufficient mandate, nor the tools and expertise to 
monitor  and  manage  concentration  and  systemic  risks  stemming  from  financial  institutions’ 
outsourcing of important functions and subsequent third party dependencies.  

Consequences:  In  a  highly  interdependent  financial  system,  which  is  interlinked  across  the 
EU,  concentration  and  systemic  risks  are  not  effectively  contained  or  unilaterally  addressed 
due  to  uncoordinated  supervisory  approaches  at  national  level.  In  the  absence  of  an  EU 
coherent  oversight  framework,  the  Single  Rulebook  does  not  offer  fully  appropriate 
mechanisms  and  tools  that  supervisors  need  to  be  able  to  quantify,  qualify,  address  and 
redress  operational,  concentration  and  exposure  risks  vis-a-vis  critical  ICT  TPPs.    The 
ensuing  reluctance  of  supervisors  to  allow  financial  institutions  to  make  greater  use  of  ICT 
TPPs also hampers the adoption of potentially more cyber-resilient ICT solutions provided by 
ICT TPPs. 

21 

 
Problem tree  

                             Drivers 

                    Problems 

Consequences 

y
r
o
s
i
v
r
e
p
u
s

d
n
a
y
r
o
t
a
l
u
g
e
R

s
p
a
g

d
n
a

s
e
h
c
a
o
r
p
p
a

t
n
e
g
r
e
v
i
d

n
o

e
c
n
a
i
l
e
r

d
e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

s
P
P
T
T
C

I

d
n
a

d
e
s
i
l
a
t
i
g
i
d
y
l
h
g
i
H

r
o
t
c
e
s

l
a
i
c
n
a
n
i
f

d
e
t
c
e
n
n
o
c
r
e
t
n
i

n
i

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

.
1

s
k
s
i
r
T
C

I
g
n
i
g
a
n
a
m

d
e
t
i

m

i
l
d
n
a

f
o
g
n
i
t
r
o
p
e
r

e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
e
n
I

.
2

d
n
a

d
e
t
i

m
L

i

.
3

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
n
i
d
n
a

s
t
a
e
r
h
t

t
u
o
b
a

s
s
e
n
e
r
a
w
a

g
n
i
t
s
e
t

d
e
t
a
n
i
d
r
o
o
c
n
u

d
r
i
h
t

T
C

I

.
4

k
s
i
r

y
t
r
a
p

Lack of specific requirements on 
ICT risks  

Disparity of ICT risk requirements 
across financial sectors 

Lack of incident reporting 
requirements for some financial 
institutions 

Multiple incident reporting 
requirements for some financial 
institutions 

Insufficient trust to share threat   
intelligence and uncertainty over 
legal compliance when sharing 

Overlapping testing for some 
financial institutions 

Lack of testing for some financial 
institutions 

Contractual limitations / gaps in 
written agreements with ICT TPPs 

No coherent oversight framework for 
ICT TPPs 

Insufficient regulatory response to 
increased levels of ICT risks 

Incomplete view over the 
frequency and significance of 
incidents 

Complex, inconsistent and 
overlapping reporting obligations 

Insufficient information sharing 
and cooperation on threat 
intelligence 

Fragmentation due to multiple 
testing and no cross-border 
recognition of results 

Insufficient assessment of 
preventive and resilience 
capabilities 

Challenges for financial 
institutions to assure compliance 
with the regulatory framework 

Unmonitored ICT TPPs risks 

22 

Financial sector stability 
and integrity at risk 

Insufficient/unequal 
protection of consumers and 
investors 

Excessive administrative 
burden and limited 
supervisory effectiveness 

Out of scope:  
Data breach notifications under GDPR 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. The EU's need to act and justification 

2.2.1.  Legal basis  

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union confers to the European institutions the 
competence to lay down appropriate provisions for the approximation of laws of the Member 
States,  that  have  as  their  objective  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market 
(Article  114  TFEU).  This  encompasses  the  power  to  enact  legislation  at  EU  level  to 
approximate  prudential,  market  conduct  and  other  relevant  requirements  for  financial 
institutions  and  for  their  supervisors.  As  financial  services  are  currently  overwhelmingly 
deployed through varied and complex ICT-based systems and processes, and likely to become 
even more so in future, there is a clear need that all financial operators understand and remain 
at all times in full control of the ICT risks deriving from their use of technological solutions, 
including  their  third  party  dependencies.  This  initiative  aims  to  remove  obstacles  to  and 
improve  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  financial  services  by 
ensuring the applicable rules are fully harmonised. The current disparities in the area of ICT 
risk  management,  testing  and  third  party  risk,  both  at  legislative  and  supervisory  level,  and 
both  at  EU  and  national  level,  act  as  obstacles  to  the  single  market  in  financial  services: 
financial  institutions  with  cross-border  activities  face  different  and  at  times  overlapping 
regulatory  requirements  or  expectations,  that  have  the  potential  to  impede  their  exercise  of 
freedom  of  establishment  and  provision  of  services;  competition  between  the  same  type  of 
financial  institutions  in  different  Member  States  is  also  distorted.  Moreover,  in  areas  where 
EU  harmonisation  is  absent  or  partial/limited  (e.g.  digital  operational  testing  framework, 
oversight  of  activities  of  critical  ICT  TPPs),  the  divergent  development  of  national  rules  or 
approaches,  which  have  either  been  adopted  or  are  in  the  process  of  adoption  and 
implementation at national level, could also act as deterrents to the single market freedoms for 
financial services.  

2.2.2.  Subsidiarity: Need for EU action 

Digital operational resilience is an issue of common interest to the EU’s financial markets. It 
is essential for the proper functioning of the EU financial sector, especially in the digital age. 
The  level  of  integration  within  the  EU  financial  sector  -  governed  by  EU  regulation  and 
supervision  -  together  with  the  cross-border  activity  of  financial  institutions,  and  the  depth 
and  breadth  of  digitalisation  set  the  financial  sector  apart  from  other  sectors.  Without 
completing  the  European  Single  Rulebook  with  operational  provisions  and  tools  to  address 
ICT  risks  and  incidents  that  it  currently  lacks,  all  other  types  of  risks  would  be  tackled  at 
European level, but digital operational resilience would remain either left out or subjected to 
fragmented and uncoordinated national-level  initiatives. The potentially significant  levels  of 
investment required also highlight that diverging requirements have very real impacts on the 
level  playing  field  in  the  internal  market.  All  this  currently  segments  financial  markets  and 
could further make the playing field uneven. 

The  interdependencies  so  typical  of  the  financial  sector  are  such  that  individual  financial 
institutions  very  often  cannot  fully  handle  the  threats,  manage  the  risks  and  the  possible 
impacts of ICT incidents on their own.  ICT threats and risks have a cross-border dimension 
that  poses  operational  challenges.  Those  interdependencies  across  Member  States  make 
public  intervention  at  EU  level  not  only  beneficial,  but  needed.  The  current  disparities 
resulting  from  uneven  frameworks  applicable  to  different  financial  institutions  and  to 
different financial subsectors and also to the same financial institution operating cross-border 
and/or  holding  several  authorisations  (e.g.  one  financial  institution  can  have  a  banking,  an 

23 

 
investment  firm,  and  a  payment  institution  licence,  every  single  one  issued  by  a  different 
supervisor  in  one  or  several  Member  States)  across  the  Member  States  can  thus  only  be 
tackled at EU level. The initiative would harmonise an area of the economy that is so deeply 
connected, integrated, interdependent and that already benefits from a single set of rules and 
supervision. 

In  terms  of  incident  reporting,  only  harmonised  EU-level  action  could  reduce  the  reporting 
burden - and the implicit costs - of the same ICT-related incident being reported to different 
EU  and/or  national  authorities.  EU  action  is  needed  also  to  facilitate  the  mutual 
recognition/acceptance  of  the  testing  results  of  institutions  operating  cross-border  that  are 
subject to different testing frameworks in different Member States. Some Member States have 
put in place (or are considering) national testing frameworks, some based on TIBER-EU, and 
some  diverging  from  it.  Furthermore,  although  some  risks  are  mitigated  in  the  Members 
States  that  introduced  specific  testing  obligations,  in  others  those  risks  remain  unaddressed 
and  unmonitored  and  this  distorts  competition.  Financial  institutions  also  rely  on  service 
providers  and infrastructures located across the EU; the lack of an appropriate and coherent 
oversight framework to monitor risks stemming from ICT TPPs, including concentration and 
contagion risks at EU level, also benefits from EU-wide action.  

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  GDPR  notifications  are  out  of  scope  in  this  initiative  since 
they are imposed by the GDPR which pursues a distinct objective, and cover only a sub-sector 
of cases (e.g. those where personal data is concerned). 

2.2.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

In  the  current  context  and  looking  at  future  scenarios,  it  appears  that,  to  increase  collective 
digital operational resilience for the financial system as a whole, individual action by Member 
States and a fragmented approach is suboptimal and clearly insufficient. EU action is deemed 
necessary  to  address  fragmentation  in  ICT  risk  management,  the  testing  frameworks, 
overlapping incident notifications and the mechanisms and tools needed to contain ICT third 
party  risk.    Action  at  EU  level  would  bring  more  advantages  and  greater  value  than  action 
taken separately at  national  level.  It  would provide legal  clarity on whether and how digital 
operational  provisions  apply,  especially  to  cross-border  financial  institutions,  and  it  would 
eliminate  the  need  for  Member  States  to  individually  improve  rules,  standards  and 
expectations  regarding  operational  resilience  and  cybersecurity  as  a  response  to  the  limited 
coverage  of  EU  financial  rules  and  the  general  nature  of  the  NIS  Directive.  However,  EU 
intervention would not impact on the NIS Directive, as it would build on it and address any 
possible  overlaps  via  a  lex  specialis  exemption.  The  interaction  between  financial  services 
regulation  and  the  NIS  Directive  would  continue  to  be  governed  by  a  lex  specialis  clause, 
which would continue to exempt financial institutions from the substantive NIS requirements 
and  avoid  overlaps  between  the  digital  operational  resilience  act  and  the  NIS  review.  In 
addition, the interaction with the European Critical Infrastructure (ECI) Directive55 would be 
in a similar way as it today co-exists with the NIS Directive. 

Not taking action at EU level would be a missed opportunity to reap the full benefits of the 
single  market,  as  the  proliferation  of  piecemeal  and  uncoordinated  approaches  at  national 
level would continue. This is particularly the case, in light of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, 

55  To be noted that the ECI Directive (Directive 2008/114/EC) does not cover the  financial sector and was adopted under 
Article  352  TFEU,  which  does  not  entail  harmonisation  and  requires  unanimity,  and  has  the  objective  to  protect  physical 
infrastructure. It has therefore a different objective than the present initiative focussed on digital operational resilience. 

24 

 
                                                 
whereby  different  measures  to  support  operational  resilience  were  taken  at  national  level.56 
The  benefits  of  digital  finance  in  continuing  to  serve  customers  remotely  during  the  crisis 
illustrate  even  more  acutely  the  need  to  ensure  heightened  and  coordinated  operational 
resilience.  Because  the  COVID-19  crisis  is  likely  to  provide  even  further  impetus  to  the 
digitalization of financial services, that should come hand in  hand with further emphasis  on 
ensuring  a  coordinated  digital  operational  resilience.  An  EU-wide  framework  would 
significantly  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  policy  while  also  reducing  complexity,  and 
easing  the  financial  and  administrative  burden  on  all  operators.  By  way  of  example,  the 
decision to incorporate the Basel standards into EU legislation over ten years ago has proven 
to be a success story: as a result, European banks are now much better capitalised and follow 
a single set of rules applicable throughout the EU thanks to a decision to act at EU and not at 
national level. 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  the  proposed  rules  will  not  go  beyond 
what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives set out in section 3 below. The initiative 
will  cover  only  the  aspects  that  Member  States  cannot  achieve  on  their  own  and  where  the 
administrative burden and costs are commensurate with the specific and general objectives to 
be  achieved.  Proportionality  will  be  carefully  designed  in  terms  of  scope  and  intensity  and 
using qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria to  ensure that the new rules will cover 
all financial subsectors and institutions, but will be tailored to the specific risks they face and 
the needs they must address; as such, proportionality will be embedded to different degrees in 
the  different  rules  on  ICT  risk  management,  basic  and  advanced  testing,  reporting  of  major 
incidents  and  oversight  of  critical  ICT  TPPs.  None  of  the  options  analysed  in  this  impact 
assessment  goes  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  objectives  set  in  the  following 
section. EU action is therefore justified on both grounds of subsidiarity and of proportionality. 

3.  OBJECTIVES 

In light of the problems outlined in the previous chapter, the overall objective of the initiative 
is  to  strengthen  the  digital  operational  resilience  of  the  EU  financial  sector  entities  by 
streamlining and upgrading existing rules and bringing in new requirements where there are 
gaps. This  would also  enhance the Single Rulebook on its digital  dimension. Moreover, the 
initiative would seek to maximise the benefits associated with the horizontal framework (e.g. 
NIS  Directive),  and  as  such  contribute  to  the  overall  resiliency  of  the  EU  economy.  The 
initiative will duly take into account recommendations endorsed at international level, as well 
as existing EU and national frameworks on ICT risk management and operational resilience.  

The overall objective can be structured in three general objectives:57 

56 Annex 1 - Financial policy measures taken in response to COVID-19 pandemic (as of 11 April 2020) of the FSB COVID-
19  pandemic:  Financial  stability  implications  and  policy  measures  taken  (15  April  2020)  show  in  the  last  column  the 
measures taken by some Member States to support operational resilience (Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France), which do not 
coincide with those taken at EU level.  
57  There  is  a  growing  consensus  among  Member  States  and  private  stakeholders  on  the  need  to  reduce  regulatory 
fragmentation and to address gaps within the current EU financial services regulatory framework. The Commission carried 
out a public consultation on digital operational resilience in the financial sector between December 2019 and March 2020, 
which revealed broad support for EU-wide harmonisation. Respondents called for all financial entities to (1) have in place an 
ICT  risk  management  framework  based  on  key  common  principles,  (2)  report  major  incidents  using  uniform  criteria, 
templates and mechanisms and to a single authority, (3) regularly update, test and review ICT systems and tools in order to 
withstand cyber-attacks or ICT-related disruptions and to assure operational resilience. Respondents also expressed the need 
to manage third party risk via outsourcing rules and an EU oversight framework (for more details see Annex 3). 

25 

 
                                                 
 
  Reduce  the  risk  of  financial  disruption  and  instability:  an  EU  digital  operational 
resilience  framework  for  the  EU  financial  services  would  enhance  the  security  and 
resilience of the financial institutions and market infrastructures and reduce the risks to 
financial stability. This would translate into the following specific objectives: 

-  Address  ICT  risks  more  comprehensively  and  strengthen  the  overall  level  of 

digital resilience of the financial sector; 

-  Enable financial supervisors’ access to information on ICT-related incidents;  
-  Ensure  that  financial  institutions  assess  the  effectiveness  of  their  preventive 

and resilience measures and identify ICT vulnerabilities;  

-  Strengthen the outsourcing rules governing the indirect oversight of ICT TPPs; 
-  Enable a direct oversight of the activities of ICT TPPs; 
- 

Incentivise the exchange of threat intelligence in the financial sector. 
  Reduce  the  administrative  burden  and  increase  supervisory  effectiveness:  the 
different  overlapping  incident  reporting  obligations  should  be  streamlined  and 
simplified  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  the  financial  institutions.  In 
addition,  a  coherent  EU  digital  operational  resilience  testing  framework  would 
contribute  to  reduce  costs  resulting  from  multiple  testing,  duplication  of  work  and 
additional burden for financial institutions within the EU financial sector. This would 
translate into the following specific objectives: 

-  Streamline 

ICT-related 

incident 

reporting  and  address  overlapping 

requirements; 

-  Reduce  single  market  fragmentation  and  enable  cross-border  acceptance  of 

testing results. 

  Increase consumer and investor protection: the envisaged measures in the initiative 
would be addressed to financial institutions. However, strengthening the overall digital 
operational  resilience of the EU financial sector would also (indirectly) contribute to 
increasing both consumer and investor protection.  

Table 2 – Intervention logic diagram 

Drivers of the problems 

Identified problems and  
their consequences 

Consequence 1 of the identified 
problems   

Financial sector stability and 
integrity at risk 

Objectives 

General Objective 1 

Reduce the risks to  financial sector 
stability and integrity 

  Lack of specific requirements 

  Problem 1: Non-specific and 

on ICT risks 

  Disparity of ICT risk 

requirements across financial 
sectors 

insufficient regulatory response to 
increased levels of ICT risks  

  Specific objective 1: address ICT and 
security risks more comprehensively 
and strengthen the overall level of 
digital resilience of the financial sector 

  Lack of incident reporting 

requirements for some financial 
institutions 

  Problem 2: Incomplete view over 
the frequency and impact of ICT-
related incidents 

  Specific objective 2: enable financial 
supervisors’ access to information on 
ICT-related incidents 

  Lack of testing for some 
financial institutions 

  Problem 3: Insufficient 

assessment of preventive and 

  Specific objective 3: ensure that 
financial institutions assess the 

26 

 
 
  Contractual limitations / gaps in 
written agreements with ICT 
TPPs 

  No coherent oversight 

framework for ICT TPPs 

resilience capabilities 

  Problem 4: Challenges for 

financial institutions to assure 
compliance with the regulatory 
framework when certain functions 
are outsourced or further sub-
outsourced  

  Problem 5: Unmonitored ICT 
TPPs risks that lead to financial 
stability concerns linked to 
concentration risk  

effectiveness of their preventive and 
resilience capabilities and identify ICT 
vulnerabilities   

  Specific objective 4: strengthen the 
outsourcing rules governing the 
indirect oversight of ICT TPPs 

  Specific objective 5: enable a direct 

oversight of the activities of ICT TPPs 

  Insufficient trust to share threat   
intelligence and uncertainty 
over legal compliance when 
sharing 

  Problem 6: Insufficient 
information sharing and 
cooperation on threat intelligence 

  Specific objective 6: incentivise the 
exchange of threat intelligence in the 
financial sector 

Consequence 2 of the identified 
problems 

Excessive administrative burden 
and limited supervisory 
effectiveness 

General Objective 2 

Reduce the administrative burden and 
increase supervisory effectiveness 

  Multiple incident reporting 

  Problem 1: Complex, 

requirements for some financial 
institutions 

inconsistent and overlapping 
reporting obligations 

  Specific objective 1: streamline ICT-
related incident reporting and address 
overlapping requirements  

  Overlapping testing for some 

financial institutions 

  Problem 2: Cost of compliance 
with multiple testing and lack of 
cross-border recognition of testing 
results 

  Specific objective 2: reduce costs (and 
single market fragmentation) and 
enable cross-border acceptance of 
testing results 

Consequence 3 of the identified 
problems58 
Insufficient/unequal protection of 
consumers and investors 

General Objective 3 
Increase consumer and investor 
protection 

4.  OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS 

This  section  will  examine  the  policy  options  available  and  their  estimated  impacts  in 
achieving the objectives presented in Table 2: 

  “Do nothing” scenario: No change in the EU financial services regulatory framework; 
  Option  1: Strengthening financial institutions’ ability to  absorb losses  stemming from 

lack of digital operational resilience; 

  Option 2: A financial services digital operational resilience act; 
  Option 3: A financial services digital operational resilience act together with centralised 

supervision of activities of critical ICT TPPs. 

58  This  is  an  additional  (indirect)  consequence  from  problems  1  to  6,  as  described  in  the  description  of  the 

general objectives. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
The below policy matrix summarises each of the options (in the rows) along with the related 
four  policy  areas  to  be  addressed  (in  the  columns)  in  light  of  the  problems  and  objectives 
specified  above.  The  four  policy  areas  have  been  identified  because  they  are  the  four  key 
inter-related  pillars  included  consensually  in  European  and  international  guidance  and  best 
practices  (e.g.  ECB,  G7,  FSB,  BCBS,  etc.)  aimed  at  enhancing  the  cyber  and  operational 
resilience  of  the  financial  sector.  The  four  policy  areas  are  therefore  the  “state  of  the  art” 
which  any  EU  initiative  which  aims  at  reducing  the  risks  to  financial  sector  stability  and 
integrity from cyber and operational risk (general objective 1 and related sub-objectives) must 
address. These are also the areas that existing fragmented  rules and supervisory activities at 
European  and  national  level  cover,  and  hence  any  initiative  aimed  at  reducing  the 
administrative burden and increase supervisory effectiveness (general objective 2 and related 
specific objectives) must cover them.  

The  digital  operational  resilience  act  aims  to  strengthen  the  digital  operational  resilience  of 
the EU financial sector by addressing the different issues reflected in the “state of the art” of 
international and European work. Achieving this objective can be pursued in different ways 
(e.g.  quantitative  vs.  qualitative  approach)  and  with  different  levels  of  integration  (e.g. 
supervisory  cooperation  vs.  new  authority  to  oversee  ICT  TPPs).  This  is  reflected  in  the 
different options assessed in this section. 

In the below matrix, each cell outlines the specific measures and level of ambition foreseen in 
each policy area. More specifically: 

  The  first  column,  ICT  risk  management,  refers  to  the  main  elements  of  the  risk 
management  framework  for  building  a  proper  digital  operational  resilience  core 
requirements for the financial sector (e.g. requirements on governance, on ICT risks to 
strengthen  the  protection,  detection,  response  and  recovery  capabilities  against  ICT-
related incidents and failures, ICT change management, etc.). 

  Reporting  and  threat  intelligence  refers  to  the  rules  that  will  govern  the  reporting  of 
ICT-related  incidents  (e.g.  in  particular  on  the  level  of  ambition  for  streamlining 
existing rules), and the exchange of threat intelligence among financial institutions. 
  Testing  refers  to  the  different  tools  and  measures  that  financial  institutions  should 
employ to assess the effectiveness of their preventive, detection, response and recovery 
capabilities  to  uncover  and  address  potential  vulnerabilities  in  their  ICT  systems  and 
ICT services (e.g. via stress tests or digital operational resilience testing). 

  ICT  third  party  risk  refers  to  the  direct  oversight  or  indirect  supervision  (e.g.  through 
application of outsourcing rules) of ICT TPPs and the authority(s) that will perform this 
activity.  

ICT risk 
management 

Reporting and threat 
intelligence 

Testing 

ICT third party risk 

“Do nothing” 
scenario 

Status-quo for EU 
financial services rules  

+ NIS Directive 

Status-quo for EU financial 
services rules  

+ NIS Directive 

Voluntary threat intel 

Based on national rules 

Status-quo on 
outsourcing based on 
ESAs guidelines  
( indirect supervision) 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Capital buffer  
+  
NIS Directive 

Same as “do nothing” 

EU – wide resilience 
stress tests 

Capital buffer 

Comprehensive EU 
rules in financial 
services legislation + 
NIS Directive 

Comprehensive EU rules in 
financial services legislation  

+ NIS Directive 

Comprehensive EU rules 
on digital operational 
resilience testing  

Voluntary threat intel 

+ mutual recognition of 

EU oversight 
framework  

28 

 
 
 
Option 3 

Comprehensive EU 
rules in financial 
services legislation 

+ out of NIS completely 

Comprehensive EU rules in 
financial services legislation 

+ out of NIS completely 

Compulsory threat intel 

testing results 

Comprehensive EU rules 
on digital operational 
resilience testing  

+ cross-authority testing 
under ESAs coordination  

New EU Authority  
(direct supervision) 

4.1. 

 Do nothing: No change in the EU financial services regulatory framework 

Under  this  scenario,  the  Commission  will  not  propose  any  changes  to  the  current  EU 
regulatory framework governing digital operational resilience for the financial industry. Rules 
addressing  operational  resilience  would  continue  to  be  set  by  current  provisions  in  the  EU 
financial  services  legislation,  which  as  highlighted  differ  substantially  across  sectors,  partly 
by  the  NIS  Directive  and  its  forthcoming  review,  as  well  as  by  national  schemes  that  have 
emerged or could emerge in the future. In addition to the planned review of the NIS Directive, 
progressive harmonisation and alignment of ICT security and supervisory practices across the 
financial  sector  could  take  place  on  a  voluntary  basis  through  soft  law  measures  (e.g. 
guidelines, recommendations) by the ESAs. Under this scenario, financial institutions would 
also  continue  to  be  encouraged  to  take  into  account  international  standards,  principles  and 
best  practices  issued  by  global  standard  setting  bodies,  which  in  due  course  may  lead  to 
changes to provisions in EU financial regulatory legislation.  

For each of the main policy areas, no changes to the regulatory framework would entail the 
following: 

a)  ICT  risk  management:  requirements  on  ICT  risk  would  remain  fragmented  across 
sectoral and horizontal legislation. Such fragmentation is likely to remain also after a 
revision  of  the  NIS  Directive:  Such  a  review  can  expand  the  personal  and  material 
scope  of  ICT  risk  requirements  to  further  parts  of  the  financial  sector,  but  it  cannot 
overcome fragmentation because of the continued interaction with fragmented sectoral 
legislation. 

b)  Incident reporting and information sharing: in the absence of EU regulatory action, 
financial  institutions  will  remain  subject  to  multiple  reporting  obligations  that  entail 
different timelines, reporting templates, authorities, thresholds, etc. In the same vein, 
competent  authorities  will  continue  to  experience  difficulties  in  monitoring  ICT 
incidents and their impact upon the financial sector. Similarly to point a), a revision of 
the NIS Directive could expand the personal and material scope of incident reporting 
and information sharing, but it will not overcome the fragmentation of requirements, 
as requirements established by sectoral legislation will remain fragmented. Currently, 
cyber  threat  intelligence  sharing  is  voluntary  and  only  a  limited  number  of  financial 
institutions are taking part in such initiatives. Legal  and regulatory barriers are often 
quoted  as  reasons  for  not  engaging  in  threat  intelligence  sharing.  Without  any 
regulatory  action,  information  sharing  arrangements  would  remain  limited  and 
fragmented in the EU, thus missing the opportunity to create synergies that leverage in 
a  collective  manner  financial  institutions’  individual  knowledge  and  practical 
experience. Financial institutions’ efforts to build up their defensive capabilities, threat 
detection techniques and mitigation strategies may then be less effective.59  

59 In February 2020, under the auspices of the ECB, the Euro Cyber Resilience Board for pan-European Financial 
Infrastructures took a first step by establishing a forum for strategic discussions between FMIs via the Cyber Information and 
Intelligence Sharing Initiative (CIISI-EU): 

29 

 
                                                 
 
c)  Digital  operational  resilience  testing:  no  changes  to  the  current  EU  regulatory 
framework implies that Member States will continue to develop and implement their 
own national testing frameworks. This will likely lead to increased multiplication and 
duplication  of  testing  requirements  on  financial  institutions  with  cross-border 
activities,  and  an  increase  of  regulatory  asymmetries  due  to  the  lack  of  mutual 
acceptance of testing results. The NIS Directive does not include specific requirements 
harmonising testing. 

d)  ICT third-party risk: with no changes in the regulatory framework, the arrangements 
and supervisory practices in applying the rules for financial institutions on outsourcing 
to  ICT  third  party  service  providers  (the  indirect  oversight),  where  they  exist,  will 
remain  scattered.  The  Commission’s  ongoing  work  on  standardising  contractual 
clauses for outsourcing to cloud by financial institutions may improve the contractual 
position of financial institutions, however only in relation to one subset of ICT TPPs 
(cloud  providers).  Moreover,  without  binding  regulatory  principles,  financial 
institutions  will  continue  to  face  limitations  and  challenges  to  comply  with  and/or 
reinforce  the  regulatory  framework  on  outsourcing  (including  the  sub-outsourcing 
value chain). In addition, prudential supervisors will continue to lack the appropriate 
tools  to  analyse  and  oversee  the  impact  of  third  party  dependencies  on  the  financial 
system. While the NIS Directive includes ex-post supervision of security requirements 
and  incident  reporting  of  cloud  service  providers,  it  is  limited  to  only  one  subset  of 
ICT  TPPs,  it  does  not  deal  with  the  oversight  of  all  critical  ICT  TPPs  when  they 
provide  their  services  to  financial  institutions,  nor  does  it  deal  with  outsourcing  to 
such entities.  

4.1.1.  Overall assessment of the current state of play and how the problems would 

evolve 

A progressive harmonisation of ICT provisions and incident reporting requirements across 
financial subsectors will not take place. While some financial institutions may upgrade their 
ICT  security,  this  would  happen  only  unevenly,  and  due  to  the  interconnectedness  of  the 
financial  system,  the  remaining  financial  institutions  will  continue  to  pose  risks  for  all 
operators in the financial system. Risks for financial sector stability and integrity (see section 
4.3.1 below for an estimation) would therefore not be mitigated substantially. 

Similar considerations apply to the national rules and supervisory practices on the direct and 
indirect  oversight  of  TPPs,  which  are  expected  to  remain  scattered  across  the  different 
financial  subsectors.  Under  this  scenario,  financial  institutions  and  prudential  supervisors 
would thus miss on the expected benefits (e.g. cost effectiveness, increased compliance with 
the  regulatory  framework,  improved  monitoring  over  the  activities  of  ICT  TPPs,)  that  a 
coherent EU oversight framework might entail.  

Regulator sponsored  cyber resilience testing is  a relatively recent  practice for the financial 
services  industry,  and  financial  institutions  (mainly  from  the  banking  sector)  are  gradually 
implementing the different schemes on a voluntary basis. Without a coordinated EU approach 
in  this  area,  cyber  resilience  testing  would  continue  to  be  patchy  and  there  would  be  no 
mutual recognition of testing results across different jurisdictions; also, it is unlikely that other 

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2020/html/ecb.sp200227~7aae128657.en.html. Such model may help catalysing 
similar initiatives, but it is too early to assess its impact. 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
financial subsectors beyond banking and market infrastructures would adopt such schemes on 
a  meaningful  scale,  therefore  missing  out  on  the  potential  benefits,  such  as  for  example 
revealing vulnerabilities and risks, test defence capabilities and business continuity, increase 
trust of customers, suppliers and business partners, etc.  

The  information  sharing  arrangements  and  initiatives  would  not  be  incentivised  and  are 
likely to remain underdeveloped and scattered across the EU. There are important economic 
and social benefits that could be missed, such as strengthening defence capabilities to prevent 
incidents  from  happening,  increase  access  to  knowledge  and  resources  for  less  prepared 
entities  in  the  sector,  sharing  of  resources  to  jointly  procure  cybersecurity  services  from  IT 
security companies, etc.60  

The forthcoming review of the NIS Directive might bring changes, among others in terms of 
expanding  the  scope  of  the  directive  and  providing  greater  harmonisation  of  requirements. 
However,  the  current  NIS  Directive  is  focused  on  cyber  security  and  is  not  explicitly 
addressing broader digital operational resilience issues, such as testing, information sharing 
among peers, direct oversight of ICT TPPs (with the exception of the ex post supervision 
of cloud service providers mentioned under letter d)) and outsourcing rules to such entities. 
Moreover, digital operational resilience risks are inherently linked to the broader set of risks 
financial institutions face (e.g. market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, etc.). All these risks are 
embedded,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  in  the  EU  financial  services  legislation,  and  are 
continuously  supervised  by  financial  supervisors  as  part  of  their  mandate.  The  Single 
Rulebook for financial services is the foundation of the EU single market in financial services 
both  in  the  Banking  Union  and  in  the  Capital  Markets  Union.  A  mere  review  of  the  NIS 
Directive,  without  adjusting  supervisors’  toolbox  to  protect  financial  stability  and  market 
integrity would not be sufficient to  ensure fully coherent and harmonised rules for financial 
institutions, given the interlinks with the broader set of financial risks. Financial supervisors 
would not be empowered with an integrated European framework to perform their mandate, 
which is of particular relevance as a legal basis for supervisors established at EU level (e.g. 
banking under the SSM supervision).    

Under  this  scenario,  it  is  unlikely  that  streamlining  ICT-related  incident  reporting  and 
addressing  overlapping  requirements  would  be  achieved.  Given  that  these  provisions  are 
present in several pieces of EU legislation or supervisory practices (e.g. NIS Directive, PSD2, 
ECB incident reporting scheme, etc.), reviews of individual legislations would bring limited 
to  no benefits  in  this  regards. Similarly, in  order  to  reduce single market  fragmentation and 
enable cross-border acceptance of testing results, limited to no benefits are expected through 
individual reviews or no action taken at EU level. 

Costs (direct, indirect, regulatory charges, administrative costs) 

For financial institutions: financial institutions’ digital operational resilience will continue to 
be  governed  by  the  different  EU  financial  services  legislation  and  partially  by  the  NIS 
Directive,  depending  on  how  Member  States  have  implemented  that  Directive.  Institutions 
facing overlapping incident reporting on the same incident and multiple testing frameworks in 
several jurisdictions will incur high costs (for more details see section 4.3.1 below and section 
3.7 of Annex 3).  

60 ENISA study on Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISACs) - Cooperative models, (2018). 

31 

 
                                                 
Under the “do nothing” scenario, financial institutions will continue to be bound by existing 
multiple  incident  reporting  obligations.  In  this  context,  incidents  will  continue  to  be 
categorised  differently  due  to  diverse  reporting  requirements  (e.g.  different  taxonomies, 
thresholds,  etc.)  and  disparate  methodologies  that  authorities  use  to  collect  data.  Over  time, 
such  approach  will  generate  increasing  expenses  in  compliance  costs  and  administrative 
burden.  

The current absence of mutual acceptance of testing results across the Member States is likely 
to remain at the same levels and this may lead to additional costs, more administrative burden 
and additional regulatory misalignments. 

In addition, even without any policy change, financial institutions are likely to face increasing 
costs  in  compliance  and  due  diligence  processes  in  the  next  years.  Even  today  and  in  the 
absence  of  a  uniform  and  comprehensive  EU  initiative,  financial  institutions  voluntarily 
implement  and  update  security  measures  or  plan  significant  investment  programmes  in  the 
next years. Some follow national or EU rules (e.g. EBA guidelines and Solvency II) or global 
standards (e.g. ISO, NIST,61 etc.). Based on global and regional regulatory requirements and 
best practices, respondents to the public consultation mentioned to have developed their own 
policies,  standards,  and  guidelines  covering  information  security  and  risk,  and  will  increase 
their spending on this front. However, they found it difficult to anticipate any quantification 
of such development of expenses (for more details see point 3.1 of Annex 3).  

Threat intelligence sharing is considered a useful preventive practice in the cyber resilience 
toolbox of financial institutions, as it can help market participants to exploit the economies of 
scale generated by the network through an active sharing of information on possible threats. 
Under this scenario, financial institutions are subject  to  these costs (see section 4.3.1 below 
for  a  detailed  estimation  of  these  costs)  only  when  they  engage  in  such  initiatives  on  a 
voluntary basis, and their engagement is proportional to the level of available resources.  

For supervisors: Over the last few years, several prudential supervisors have been increasing 
their  resources  dedicated  to  IT  supervision.  Under  this  scenario,  the  overall  costs  related  to 
supervision, reporting and enforcement borne by national competent authorities as a result of 
monitoring ICT-related activities in each national jurisdiction are likely to remain and further 
increase as supervisors may upgrade their systems unevenly on a voluntary basis. On average, 
according  to  supervisory  data  and  Commission’s  calculations,  it  is  estimated  that  currently 
around 5-10% of the total FTEs dedicated to supervising financial institutions are assigned to 
IT supervision. 

Overall,  the  ongoing  COVID-19  crisis  is  likely  to  further  accentuate  many  of  the  costs 
highlighted above. The crisis has so far illustrated the benefits of digital finance in ensuring 
access  to  financial  services  on  a  remote  basis.  It  is  therefore  likely  that  financial  services 
policy at various levels will in the near future focus on further digitalising finance. This will 
put further emphasis on strengthening digital operational resilience. Hence, in the absence of 
a  coherent  response  at  EU  level,  national/sectoral  actions  are  likely  to  proliferate,  thus 
accentuating the costs outlined above. 

61 NIST here refers to the cybersecurity framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a unit 
of the U.S. Commerce Department. 

32 

 
                                                 
4.2. Option 1: Strengthening financial institutions’ ability to absorb losses stemming 

from lack of digital operational resilience 

EU  financial  services  legislation  is  governed  by  a  set  of  sectoral  provisions  on  risks  (e.g. 
market risk, operational risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, etc.). One of these risks is operational 
risk and it covers the risk of losses resulting from “inadequate  or  failed  internal  processes,  
people    and    systems    or    from    external    events”.62  For  banks  and  insurance  services,  for 
example, these provisions translate into capital charges. This quantitative approach is in line 
with  international  regulatory  measures  to  address  risks  through  capital  charges/buffers.  For 
instance,  the  Basel  Committee  on  Banking  Supervision  (BCBS)  has  recently  revised  the 
operational risk framework by addressing the risks with increased capital. Under this option, 
strengthening  the  digital  operational  resilience  in  financial  services  would  be  achieved  by 
amending the different provisions on operational risk in the EU financial services legislation 
and partly by the review of the NIS Directive.  

In contrast to the other options, this option – in addition to the review of the NIS Directive – 
follows  a  purely  quantitative  approach  targeted  at  increasing  the  capital  charges  and  loss 
absorption capacity for operational risks. This reduces the financial risk (of default) from an 
operational risk event. Setting capital aside to cover a potential risk represents a cost for the 
financial  institution.  Capital  charges  should  accordingly  incentivise  financial  institutions  to 
reduce their exposure to the underlying risk to the extent possible.  

Under this option: 

a)  ICT  risk  management:  first,  the  current  operational  risk  framework  would  be 
amended  by  introducing  a  specific  loss  event  type  on  ICT  risk.  Second,  a  new  and 
specific capital  buffer for  ICT risk would be created and it will sit above the capital 
provisions for operational risk. The calibration of this capital buffer would be based on 
historical data on losses due to ICT-related incidents.  

b)  Incident  reporting  and  information  sharing:  Streamlining  and  improving  incident 
reporting to financial supervisors would not be addressed under this option. Financial 
institutions  would  be  required  to  report  losses  stemming  from  ICT-related  incidents 
and  provision  the  specific  capital  buffer  based  on  past  losses  resulting  from  ICT-
related incidents. The level of this specific capital buffer would very likely be higher 
as  compared  to  the  current  rules  on  operational  risk.  The  sharing  of  cyber  threat 
intelligence  will  continue  to  be  voluntary  and  limited  to  the  financial  institutions 
currently participating in such initiatives. 

c)  Digital  operational  resilience  testing:  under  this  option,  the  digital  operational 
resilience of financial institutions would be assessed through stress testing the specific 
capital  buffer  for  ICT  risk.  For  banks,  the  existing  EU-wide  stress  tests  coordinated 
every two years by EBA would be used. These tests assess how resilient banks are to 
economic  shocks.  The  specific  capital  buffer  for  ICT  risk  would  be  included  in  the 
methodologies  and  scenarios  of  the  EU-wide  stress  test.  For  other  financial 
institutions, a similar stress testing exercise focused on ICT risks would be developed 
by the ESAs and run in collaboration with the national competent authorities.  

62 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), Principles for sound management of operational risk (PSMOR). 

33 

 
                                                 
d)  ICT  third-party  risk:  under  this  option,  a  dedicated  capital  buffer  for  exposure  to 
ICT TPPs would be set in the legislation. This capital buffer would aim to strengthen 
the  financial  resilience  of  financial  institutions  by  increasing  the  loss  absorption 
capacity from operational incidents stemming from ICT TPPs, and, similarly to capital 
charges more broadly, incentivise financial institutions to reduce those risks. 

4.2.1.  Assessment of the impact 

Benefits 

Reduce the risk of financial instability: only one (i.e. strengthen the overall level of digital 
resilience  of  the  financial  sector)  out  of  the  six  specific  objectives  in  Table  2  would  be 
partially achieved. 

The overall resilience of the financial sector would be enhanced through increasing the loss 
absorption  capacity  of  some  financial  institutions.  Some  benefits  would  be  achieved 
compared to the “do nothing” scenario, as better capitalised financial institutions would have 
more  financial  resources  to  absorb  the  impact  of  ICT-related  incidents.  Furthermore, 
additional benefits  could result over time from lower capital  charges if financial institutions 
take  actions  to  improve  their  resilience,  as  less  incidents  would  translate  into  lower  capital 
provisions. This may accordingly improve system resilience over time. However, this option 
would not be equally effective for all financial sectors, as evidenced by recent incidents at, for 
instance,  Bank of Valetta and Equifax.  In these  cases, the impact  on capital  was significant 
and  clearly  exceeded  any  additional  capital  charges  which  could  reasonably  be  put  on 
financial  institutions.  For  Bank  of  Valetta,  the  €13  million  that  were  subject  to  the  cyber 
incident63  represented  approximately  one  third  of  its  minimum  capital  requirements  for 
operational risks (in accordance with Article 438 (c) to (f) of CRR).64 In the case of Equifax, 
the  estimated  losses  of  around  $1.38  billion  exceeded  by  far  the  minimum  capital 
requirements for operational risks and accounted to approx. 40% of their total capital, and to 
around 20% of their total assets.65 In addition, for the first time ever, there was a change of 
rating outlook for Equifax due to a cyber breach,66 which can lead to additional costs such as 
increase in the costs of borrowing and access to capital markets.  

In terms of financial supervisors’ access to information on ICT-related incidents, this option 
would  bring  no  improvement.  Compared  to  the  current  rules,  and  as  such,  no  benefits  are 
expected  compared  to  the  “do  nothing”  scenario.  From  the  perspective  of  financial 
institutions,  the  voluntary  exchange  of  threat  intelligence  across  the  financial  sector  would 
likely  remain  at  the  same  level  as  compared  to  the  “do  nothing”  scenario.  The  benefits  of 
incentivising the exchange of threat intelligence in the financial sector would not be achieved.  

Under  this  option,  ICT  TPPs  would  continue  to  be  subject  to  an  indirect  supervision 
performed  by  supervisors  over  the  supervised  financial  institutions  through  the  different 

63 It should be noted that the €13 million that were initially stolen were finally recovered, according to media: 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bank-valetta-cyber/cyber-attack-on-malta-bank-tried-to-transfer-cash-abroad-
idUSKCN1Q21KZ.  
64 2019 Annual Report of Bank of Valetta, https://www.bov.com/documents/bov-annual-result---2019.   
65 According to media reports, the total estimated losses for Equifax were about 1.38 billion USD. See: 
https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/91573-equifax-settles-2017-data-breach-for-138-billion. For the annual accounts, 
see https://investor.equifax.com/~/media/Files/E/Equifax-IR/Annual%20Reports/2017-annual-report.pdf  
66 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/moodys-downgrades-equifax-outlook-to-negative-cites-cybersecurity.html.  

34 

 
 
                                                 
written  agreements  used  in  outsourcing  arrangements.  In  this  context,  financial  institutions 
would  continue  to  face  challenges  in  assuring  compliance  with  the  regulatory  framework 
when certain functions are outsourced or further sub-outsourced to ICT TPPs, and thus there 
would  be  no  expected  benefits  as  compared  to  the  “do  nothing”  scenario.  In  addition,  there 
will  be  no  direct  oversight  over  ICT  TPPs  under  this  option,  except  that  cloud  computing 
services that are subject to the current rules of the NIS Directive, would continue to comply 
with  the  security  and  notification  requirements  therein.  Therefore,  there  are  no  expected 
benefits as compared to the “do nothing” scenario. 

Reducing  administrative  burden  and  increase  supervisory  effectiveness:  only  one  (i.e. 
reduce  single  market  fragmentation  and  enable  cross-border  acceptance  of  testing  results) 
out of the two specific objectives in Table 2 would be partially achieved. 

Under  this  option,  there  will  be  no  action  taken  to  streamline  the  ICT-related  incidents 
reporting and the overlapping requirements would not be addressed. Therefore, no expected 
benefit as compared to the “do nothing” scenario. 

The EU-wide stress tests would achieve the objective of reducing single market fragmentation 
and  enabling  cross-border  acceptance  of  testing  results.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that 
financial institutions would not be required to build up preventive and resilience capabilities 
that  enable  them  to  better  identify  and  assess  ICT  vulnerabilities  they  are  exposed  to. 
Therefore, from this perspective, limited benefits are expected under this option as compared 
to the “do nothing” scenario.  

Finally,  the  objective  of  increasing  consumer  and  investor  protection  would  be  partially 
achieved at higher costs for the current shareholders/prospective investors of those financial 
institutions that would have to strengthen their capital. 

Costs (direct, indirect, regulatory charges, administrative costs) 

For  financial  institutions:  provisioning  for  a  new  capital  buffer  on  ICT  risk  and  TPPs 
exposures would entail greater compliance costs to raise additional capital of a high quality, 
and  an  increase  in  own  funds  would  require  financial  institutions  to  maintain  the  level  of 
provisions up to a certain minimum level on a permanent basis. Under this option, the capital 
buffer would nevertheless not lead to such significant capital increases that it would be out of 
proportion  with  the  policy  positions  taken  by  the  international  supervisory  community.  For 
example,  the  recent  finalisation  of  the  international  Basel  III  accord  on  bank  supervision, 
which the Commission remains committed to implement, would lead to an average increase 
of  23,6%  of  a  credit  institution’s  total  capital  in  the  EU67.  In  comparison,  tackling  digital 
operational  resilience  by  a  quantitative  approach  would  not  lead  to  capital  increases  which 
would be completely out of proportion. In order to further illustrate the scale of the potential 
additional  levels  of  capitalisation  under  this  option,  we  could  use  as  proxy  the  amount  of 
estimated  losses  incurred  by  financial  institutions  in  a  specific  ICT  related  incident  and 
express it as a percentage of the institutions’ total capital. Table 3 below gives an indication 
of  the  potential  additional  levels  of  capitalisation  that  could  be  expected  under  this  option. 
These levels are wide-ranging and further calibration is needed. 

Table 3 - potential additional levels of capitalisation under option 1 

67 https://eba.europa.eu/eba-updates-estimates-impact-implementation-basel-iii-and-provides-assessment-its-
effect-eu-economy  

35 

 
                                                 
Financial 
institution 

Estimated costs of 
past incidents68  

Equifax 
TSB Bank 
Capital One 
Banco de Chile 

$ 1,38 billion 
£ 330 million 
$ 150 million 
$ 10 million 

Total capital 

$ 3,2 billion 
£ 1.879 million 
$ 58 billion 
$ 4,08 billion 

Estimated costs of past 
incidents as percentage 
of total capital 

42,6% 
17,6% 
0,3% 
0,2% 

Source: Financial institutions’ annual accounts, press review and Commission’s calculations 

In addition, there will be other direct costs associated with the process of regular reporting on 
the capital buffer, as well as with adapting the IT systems. Financial institutions would face 
direct and administrative costs associated with extending the stress testing exercises to  other 
financial sectors, beyond banking. 

For supervisors: the EU-wide stress test exercise for banks involves several actors in the EU 
financial  sector  (e.g.  staff  from  ESRB,  NCAs,  ECB,  European  Commission,  etc.),  is  quite 
resource  intensive  and  is  prepared  over  a  period  of  two  years  (e.g.  design  of  methodology, 
scenarios,  data  collection,  quality  checks,  running  the  exercise,  publication  of  results,  etc.). 
The  exercise  is  coordinated  by  the  EBA,  with  7  FTEs  directly  involved  in  this  process,69 
while  the  total  FTEs  involved  in  the  entire  exercise  amount  to  at  least  250  FTEs,70  with  a 
tendency to increase the number of staff over time. By including the envisaged capital buffer 
for  banks,  a  marginal  increase  of  around  5-10%  in  the  costs  is  estimated.71  However, 
developing  an  EU  wide  stress  test  on  ICT  risk  that  goes  beyond  banking  and  covers  all 
financial  sectors  would  entail  significant  costs  for  the  securities  markets  and  insurance 
prudential  supervisors.  It  would  require  specialised  technical  expertise  (e.g.  modelling 
experts,  examiners,  ICT  and  TPPs  risk  specialists,  considerable  time  to  develop  capable 
testing resources, etc.). It is estimated that the amount of direct costs would be in the range of 
25 to 50 FTEs.72   

4.2.2.  Overall assessment of the option 

The  main  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  it  provides  for  limited  changes  to  existing  EU 
financial services legislation. These limited amendments would be targeted to introduce a new 
/separate  type  of  loss  event  in  the  operational  risk  frameworks  coupled  with  a  new  specific 
capital  buffer  for  ICT  risk  and  TPPs  exposure.  Another  advantage  is  that  over  time,  it  may 
increase system resilience if financial institutions implement measures to increase their digital 

68 See: https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/91573-equifax-settles-2017-data-breach-for-138-billion,  
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/01/tsb-computer-meltdown-bill-rises-to-330m, 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-capital-one-fin-cyber/capital-one-says-information-of-over-100-million-
individuals-in-u-s-canada-hacked-idUSKCN1UO2EB and https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/banco-de-chile-
loses-10-million-in-swift-related-attack-a-11075.    
69 European Court of Auditors, 2019 Special Report on EU-wide stress tests for banks: unparalleled amount of information 
on banks provided but greater coordination and focus on risks needed. 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_10/SR_EBA_STRESS_TEST_EN.pdf.  
70 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “Supervisory and bank stress testing: range of practices”, December 2017, 
https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d427.pdf.  
71 This estimation is based on the assumption that between 5 to 10% of the total EU-wide stress tests FTEs are dedicated to 
operational risk related issues (including ICT risk). 
72 This estimation is based on the assumption that between 5 to 10% of the total EU-wide stress tests FTEs are dedicated to 
operational risk related issues (including ICT risk). The range of 25 to 50 FTEs results from applying this percentage to the 
total FTEs for the EU-wide stress tests, and then multiply by two to account for both the securities markets and insurance 
sectors. 

36 

 
                                                 
operational resilience and reduce ICT-related incidents based on which the provisioning will 
be calculated. 

The main disadvantage of this option is that it will have only limited effects on increasing the 
operational,  as  opposed  to  financial,  resilience  of  the  EU  financial  sector,  as  provisioning 
more capital to cater for losses stemming from ICT-related incidents would be an insufficient 
measure and, while firms may be incentivised to take measures to improve their resilience in 
order to reduce their capital requirements, there is no clarity on the nature of these measures 
or  the  degree  to  which  firms  will  actually  strive  to  adopt  such  measures  (or  just  accept  the 
capital  charge).  This  option  is  accordingly  rather  costly,  as  evidenced  in  the  above 
assessment, with very limited benefits in terms of effectiveness. This high cost is particularly 
relevant  in  the  current  context  of  COVID-19.  Overall,  this  option  would  address  to  a  very 
limited extent objective 1 and 3, but not objective 2. 

Note that this option would not be in line with ESAs joint technical advice, where the ESAs 
recommended the Commission to make legislative changes targeted at qualitative measures in 
different areas, for instance introducing specific requirements in the legislation on operational 
resilience to support good and consistent ICT risk management across the financial sector.  

Effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 

This  option  would  be  the  least  effective,  as  it  would  achieve  only  two  of  the  eight  specific 
objectives of the initiative, and that would imply that the problems identified would persist or 
even magnify. The quantitative measures envisaged under this option would entail important 
costs for financial institutions, as capital charges represent one of the most costly regulatory 
measures.  This  option  would  also  require  more  clarity  and  coherence  with  the  existing 
horizontal EU framework (e.g. NIS Directive).  

Impact on stakeholders73 

Based on the above assessment, the following table summarizes the benefits and costs of the 
option  for  each  category  of  stakeholders,  while  the  vertical  arrows  present  the  estimated 
impact  for 
institutions  would  benefit  from  partially 
strengthening  their  overall  digital  operational  resilience  and  consumers/investors  would  be 
slightly  more  protected  from  negative  repercussions  stemming  from  operational  losses. 
However, this comes with significant costs for the supervisors and financial institutions. 

these  stakeholders.  Financial 

Consumers/investors  Financial institutions 

ICT TPPs 

Supervisors 

Benefits 

Costs 

↑ 

↑ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

≈ 

≈ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

4.3. Option 2: A digital operational resilience act for the financial sector  

Under this option, the Commission would propose a comprehensive framework addressing in 
a  consistent  manner  at  EU  level  the  digital  resilience  needs  of  all  regulated  financial 

73 Throughout the document, stakeholders are grouped in categories slightly different from the traditional categories of 
stakeholders to reflect the main actors that will be impacted by the new rules. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
institutions,  as  opposed  to  27  national  regimes  or  to  different  EU  pieces  of  financial 
legislation. In contrast with Option 1 – which relies on the existing quantitative approaches to 
provisioning against operational risks by means of increasing firms’ loss absorbing capacity – 
Option  2  would  strengthen  the  qualitative  dimension  of  the  operational  risk  framework  by 
building a proper digital operational resilience core requirements (the “core requirements”).  

Under  this  option,  the  core  requirements  in  the  initiative  would  apply  across  the  financial 
sector.  When  defining  the  core  requirements  across  the  four  main  areas,  the  principle  of 
proportionality would apply both across the subsectors, but also within each subsector, taking 
into  account,  where  relevant,  specific  needs  arising  for  specific  categories  of  financial 
institutions, as well as their business models, size, risk profile, systemic importance, etc. For 
instance, in terms of ICT risk management requirements, only insignificant changes would 
be  required  for  payment  service  providers,  central  counterparties  or  central  securities 
depositories,  as  these  institutions  are  already  subject  to  rigorous  requirements.  More 
significant  changes  of  requirements  would  be  envisaged  for  other  subsectors  like  banking, 
asset  managers,  insurers,  etc.  In  terms  of  the  type  of  institutions,  bigger  and  systemic 
institutions  would  be  subject  to  more  stringent  requirements,  while  for  smaller  institutions 
these  requirements  could  be  less  exhaustive.  In  terms  of  incident  reporting,  existing 
disparate  and  overlapping  requirements  would  be  streamlined,  as  well  as  new  requirements 
introduced for those subsectors that are currently not  subject to  such rules. Not all financial 
institutions would be equally affected by these rules, as materiality thresholds, time frames to 
report ICT-related incidents, etc. would be calibrated to capture major incidents. For instance, 
these  rules  could  be  more  relevant  for  significant  financial  institutions  and  impact  less  on 
smaller  entities.  Financial  institutions  would  be  also  required  to  test  their  preventive  and 
responsive  capabilities.  This  would  be  more  demanding  for  significant  financial  institutions 
(e.g. big banks, stock exchanges, CSDs, CCPs, etc.) At the same time, testing would be also 
more relevant for some subsectors with a core systemic role (e.g. payments, banking, clearing 
and  settlement),  and  less  relevant  for  other  subsectors  e.g.  asset  managers,  credit  rating 
agencies, etc. Finally, the rules on third party risk would cover two main areas: strengthened 
requirements  on  outsourcing  to  ICT  third  party  providers,  and  a  direct  oversight  of  the 
activities  of  ICT  TPPs.  The  detailed  calibration  of  the  proportionality  elements  of  the 
measures will depend on financial institutions’ systemic relevance and size. For more specific 
details on the main elements of the core requirements and how it would affect the different 
financial subsectors, see Annex 4. 

Financial  subsectors  under  the  scope  of  the  NIS  Directive  would  remain  subject  to  the  NIS 
Directive  and  its  lex  specialis  exemption  would  continue  to  apply.  As  a  consequence,  the 
substantive requirements of the NIS Directive would not be applicable to them. They would 
however  remain  associated  with  the  NIS  ‘ecosystem  provisions’  (e.g.  Cooperation  Group, 
CSIRTs network) through a specific article in the new act. The association would materialise 
via, for example, the exchange of information and cooperation between financial supervisors 
and  the  NIS  designated  authorities  or  the  participation  of  financial  supervisors  in  the  NIS 
Cooperation Group.  

Under this option: 

a)  ICT  risk  management:  The  digital  operational  resilience  would  be  rooted  in  rules 
implementing core requirements for a sound ICT risk management framework, in line 
with  the  joint  ESAs  technical  advice.  All  financial  institutions  would  be  required  to 
have  in  place  an  ICT  risk  management  framework  developed  on  key  common 
principles that are risk-based and allow for a proportionate application. The ICT risk 

38 

 
management cycle would be composed of several stages designed to identify ICT risk, 
detect  threats  and vulnerabilities,  protect  against them, respond to  them, recover  and 
learn from disruptions and, finally, share threat intelligence with other peers.74  

in  every 

b)  Incident  reporting  and  information  sharing:  communication  on  ICT-related 
incidents  (ex-post  reporting  to  competent  authorities)  would  be  enhanced  and 
extended to those subsectors currently not subject to such rules. Current rules, which 
are  either  disparate  or  overlapping,  would  be  deleted 
relevant 
directive/regulation  across  the  financial  sector,  be  they  in  level  1  or  level  2  acts. 
Financial institutions would follow a single incident  reporting scheme that  would be 
set out in the new act, with one set of criteria to qualify what is a “major” ICT-related 
incident, one template, one deadline, and one competent authority to report to, in line 
with the joint ESAs technical advice. Because the lex specialis clause would be better 
explained in the new act, leaving no room for national interpretation and divergence, 
the  current  double  reporting  of  the  same  incident  to  different  competent  authorities 
would be eliminated. Instead, the competent authority receiving the reports would be 
required  explicitly  to  exchange  the  information  with  other  authorities  within  and 
across Member States, where relevant.  
Under  this  option,  the  enhanced  reporting  of  ICT-related  incidents  would  be 
complemented by a voluntary scheme encouraging communication on threats (ex-ante 
information  sharing  between  financial  institutions,  and  involving  relevant  authorities 
where  applicable).  Information  sharing  on  key  lessons  and  main  vulnerabilities  in  a 
trusted environment would enhance awareness and readiness to react and thus render 
the financial sector more stable. Information sharing will have to be compatible with 
existing  EU  law,  e.g.  the  GDPR  that  also  contains  specific  safeguards  allowing  for 
information sharing in the interest of security (one of the “legitimate interests” under 
Article 6(1)(f)). 

c)  Digital  operational  resilience  testing:  a  proportionate  resilience  testing  framework 
that so far has been designed at national level  would be replaced by harmonised EU 
rules.  More  advanced  testing  (for  example  threat  led  penetration  testing)  would  be 
required only for significant financial institutions, in line with the joint ESAs technical 
advice.  Testing  results  would  be  mutually  recognised  across  the  national  competent 
authorities  in  the  EU.  The  new  act  would  empower  the  ESAs  to  develop  rules  to 
determine  cyber  maturity,  as  well  as  guidelines  for  TLPT  testing,  based  on  e.g. 
TIBER-EU.  

d)  ICT  third  party  risk:  an  enhanced  monitoring  of  risks  stemming  from  ICT  TPPs 
would  be  built  upon  two  elements:  heightened  outsourcing  rules  and  oversight  tools 
for supervisors in relation to ICT activities of TPPs when they provide their services to 
financial institutions, which in the case of cloud service providers would complement 
the direct ex post supervision of security requirements and incident reporting under the 
NIS  Directive.  The  new  act  would  grant  supervisors  certain  powers  and  tools  for 
monitoring  systemic  risk  resulting  from  ICT  TPPs,  identifying  points  of  failure, 
concentration risk and risk transmission channels, in line with the joint ESAs technical 

74  In  terms  of  legal  drafting,  first,  the  provisions  on  operational  risk  that  already  exist  in  the  current  acquis  would  be 
maintained,  but  any  references  to  ICT  risk  thereof  would  be  deleted  and  replaced  by  an  amendment  specifying  that  the 
qualitative aspects of the digital component of operational risk are to be found in the new act. That way, the cross-reference 
between each piece of legislation in the financial sector acquis and the horizontal act on digital operational resilience would 
be  clearly  established,  avoiding  possible  loopholes  and  legal  uncertainty.  Second,  in  those  legal  acts  that  do  not  contain 
explicit provisions on operational risk (e.g. UCITS,  AIFMD, CRAR, etc.), a similar amendment would be made under the 
section dealing with risks, to make sure the risk landscape is complete for every single financial subsector. 

39 

 
                                                 
advice.  These  new  powers  and  tools  for  prudential  supervisors  would  include  e.g. 
recommendations, enhanced inspection rights, pooled audits, etc. Taking into account 
that  large  critical  ICT  TPPs  operate  cross-border,  regulatory  oversight  could  be 
achieved via cooperation agreements, joint inspections and exchange of information. 

4.3.1.  Assessment of the impact 

Benefits 

Reduce  the  risk  to  financial  sector  stability  and  integrity:  all  six  specific  objectives 
detailed in Table 2 would be achieved under this option.  

The  harmonisation  envisaged  under  this  option  would  address  in  a  comprehensive  manner 
ICT  risks  across  the  financial  sector.  The  rules  would  lift  up  the  level  of  the  core 
requirements on digital operational resilience across the financial subsectors by enhancing the 
protective  and  responsive  capabilities  of  financial  institutions  against  ICT-related  incidents. 
This would in turn, address the vulnerability outlined in section 1.2 (cf. figure 2), i.e. reduce 
the  risk  of  a  cyber  incident  quickly  spreading  across  financial  markets  and  jurisdictions.  It 
will  also  secure  the  operating  environment  for  all  financial  market  participants  even  in  a 
strongly  interconnected  environment,  and  thus  increase  the  overall  digital  operational 
resilience of the EU financial sector. Almost all respondents to the public consultation agreed 
that all financial entities should have in place an ICT risk management framework based on 
key common principles and allow for a proportionate application. 

Under  this  option  the  main  expected  benefits  would  result  from  the  likely  contribution  of  a 
comprehensive digital operational resilience framework to reduce the risk of financial sector 
stability and integrity and to mitigate the negative impacts of ICT-related incidents. In order 
to estimate the scale of these potential negative impacts, industry estimates the cost of cyber 
incidents  to  range  from  $45  billion  to  $654  billion  for  the  global  economy  in  2018.75 
Assuming  that  about  one  fifth  of  incidents  occur  in  the  financial  sector  (see  section  1.2 
above), and the EU economy accounts for around 21% of the global economy76, this would 
imply costs in the range of $2 billion to $27 billion for the EU. While a potential reduction of 
the  negative  impacts  can  be  bigger,  if  we  assume  a  conservative  reduction  of  10%  of  these 
risks, it would lead to benefits in the range of $200 million to $2,7 billion for the EU financial 
system. As evidenced by the ESRB and confirmed by the responses to the public consultation,  
estimating the cost of cyber incidents in a more detailed manner is extremely difficult for two 
main  reasons:  (i)  not  all  cyber  incidents  are  reported,  and  (ii)  even  for  those  reported,  it  is 
often  not  clear  to  what  extend  the  figure  includes  direct  losses  (e.g.  loss  of  revenue,  funds 
stolen, repair costs, etc.) and indirect losses (e.g. loss of reputation, legal costs and fines, etc.). 

Financial supervisors would be immediately and directly notified by the financial institutions 
themselves  of  all  major  ICT-related  incidents  they  experienced.  This  direct  reporting 
contributes to achieving the objective of enabling financial supervisors’ access to information 
on  ICT-related  incidents.  The  information  that  supervisors  will  receive  would  feed  into  the 
overall  supervisory  process  as  part  of  their  mandate,  and  could  lead  in  some  instances  to 

75  ESRB  report  Systemic  Cyber  Risk  and  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cyber-attack-financial-crisis-
christine-lagarde-ecb-a9322556.html.  
76 According to IMF data, the EU economy represent approx. 21% of the global economy. Source: IMF - 
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/index.aspx.   

40 

 
 
                                                 
additional actions taken by financial supervisors such as e.g. increased capital charges, on-site 
inspections, and even in sanctions, etc. Under this option, financial supervisors would also be 
obliged  to  pass  on  this  information  to  non-financial  authorities.  Notifications  would 
accordingly  also  reach  other  authorities  outside  the  financial  sector  (NIS  authority,  data 
protection national authority, law enforcement authorities for incidents of criminal nature).  

Harmonised basic and advanced testing would ensure that financial institutions assess on an 
ongoing basis or frequently, respectively, the effectiveness of their preventive and resilience 
capabilities  to  identify,  repair  and  mitigate  ICT  vulnerabilities  that  could  otherwise  be 
exploited by malicious actors. The main benefits for financial institutions would come from 
an increased detection of unknown vulnerabilities and risks in their systems and digital assets, 
enabling them to take timely actions for increasing resilience against possible disruptions. The 
majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  call  for  EU  legislative  changes  going  in 
these directions (see Annex 3).  

Under  this  option,  voluntary  sharing  of  vital  threat  intelligence  in  the  financial  sector  via 
platforms would be promoted/encouraged, and thus it is very likely that it would no longer be 
an  exception,  but  become  the  common  practice;  by  creating  trusted  communities  to  discuss 
cybersecurity threats and best practices, the main benefits for financial institutions would be 
an  increased  capacity  to  leverage  their  collective  knowledge  and  experience  to  address  the 
threats ahead of them and make informed decisions about their defensive capabilities, threat 
detection  techniques  and  mitigation  strategies.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation agree that the EU should play a role in supporting and promoting the voluntary 
information sharing as it would help reduce information asymmetries across jurisdictions, and 
foster  coordination,  communication  and  cooperation  among  financial  institutions  and 
competent authorities (if they collaborate on such platforms) (for more details see point 3.5 of 
Annex 3). 

When it comes to ICT third party risks, the existing set of EBA guidelines on outsourcing 
are  only  applicable  to  banks  and  payment  service  providers,  but  not  to  (re)insurance  or 
securities markets entities. In addition, given that the EBA guidelines are applied on a comply 
or explain basis, some competent authorities were non-compliant by the entry date into force, 
while others already announced they will not  comply with  some of the  principles.77 EIOPA 
has  also  published  a  set  of  guidelines  on  outsourcing  to  cloud  service  providers,  which  are 
expected  to  entry  into  force  in  January  2021.  Under  this  option,  the  currently  limited  and 
scattered  outsourcing  rules  in  financial  legislation  would  be  strengthened  by  elevating  and 
substantiating the main principles in the EBA/EIOPA Guidelines on outsourcing into the new 
act. Such principles would be imposed as obligations on all financial institutions. This would 
provide them with a coherent set of rules on managing the risks associated to outsourcing to 
ICT  TPPs.  In  this  way,  financial  institutions  would  have  a  comprehensive  framework  with 
specific provisions against which they would need to ensure compliance of their contractual 
relationship  with  ICT  TPPs.  To  reflect  these  legal  requirements  and  guidelines  in  their 
contracts with  ICT TPPs, market participants could e.g. choose to deploy the Commission’s 
forthcoming Standard Contractual Clauses. The main benefits for financial institutions would 
result from an increased ability to enforce the contractual rights in order to ensure ICT TPPs’ 
compliance  with  the  regulatory  framework.  This  would  also  alleviate  some  supervisory 
concerns around operational risks which, although originated at a third party (or further in the 

77  See  EBA  Compliance  table  for  more  details:  https://eba.europa.eu/regulation-and-policy/internal-governance/guidelines-
on-outsourcing-arrangements  

41 

 
                                                 
sub-outsourcing  chain),  have  direct  consequences  on  the  actual  performance  of  financial 
institutions. 

Under  this  option,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  sector-agnostic  horizontal  digital  oversight 
authority (e.g. through another Union act), financial supervisors would have direct oversight 
over the activities of ICT TPPs, thus ensuring better micro and macro-prudential scrutiny over 
risks that may arise outside the financial sector. As evidenced before in section 2, almost 60% 
of the companies experienced a data breach caused by a third party provider according to the 
Ponemon  Institute.  The  Institute  of  International  Finance  (IIF)78  highlights  that  one  of  the 
risks to  financial stability  stems  from  the digital transformation  that  creates single points of 
failure.  According  to  industry  research79,  around  70%  of  the  global  market  for  cloud  (i.e. 
infrastructures as a service and platform as a service) lies in the hands of four cloud service 
providers, all of them non-European. An overwhelming majority of respondents to the public 
consultation supported the introduction of an oversight framework for critical ICT TPPs (for 
more details, see point 3.4 of Annex 3).  

Reducing  administrative  burden  and  increase  supervisory  effectiveness:  both  specific 
objectives detailed in Table 2 would be achieved under this option. 

ICT-related  incident  reporting  would  be  streamlined,  so  overlapping  and  duplicative 
requirements  would  be  deleted  and  compliance  costs  and  burdens  be  alleviated.  In  their 
replies to the public consultation, almost all stakeholders called for a harmonised taxonomy of 
reportable  incidents,  reporting  templates  and  timeframes,  and  materiality  thresholds.  One 
respondent  estimated the impact of such overlapping requirements to be around 2% of their 
cybersecurity budget. The expected benefits would the savings from eliminating the costs of 
overlapping  and  duplicative  reporting.  As  illustrated  in  section  2.1.2,  one  of  the  subsectors 
that is facing multiple reporting obligations of the same incident is banking. If we take as a 
reference the 2% costs mentioned by the respondent,  and apply it to  the banking sector, we 
could estimate potential savings only for the top 6 out of the more than 6000 EU banks to be 
in the range of up to €29 to 68 million.80 

Also, fragmentation would be eliminated thanks to a single set of testing rules applicable to 
all  EU  financial  institutions.  The  expected  benefits  would  be  even  more  relevant  for  cross-
border  financial  institutions  as  they  would  need  to  comply  with  a  single  set  of  advanced 
testing requirements (e.g. TLPTs) and incur testing costs in one jurisdiction only. According 
to  supervisory  data  and  Commission’s  calculations,  it  is  estimated  that  in  the  absence  of  a 
coherent  testing  framework  and  mutual  acceptance  of  testing  results,  cross-border  financial 
institution  could  be  subject  to  a  range  of  2  to  5  similar  tests  in  different  Member  States. 
Respondents to the public consultation indicated that costs for such tests are in the range of 
€250-500.000,  depending  on  the  scope.  Therefore,  the  potential  cost  savings  could  be 
estimated  in  the  range  of  €250.000  to  2  million  per  cross-border  financial  institution.  To 

78 https://www.iif.com/portals/0/Files/private/32370132_cloud_computing_in_the_financial_sector_20180803_0.pdf.  
79 https://www.srgresearch.com/articles/amazon-microsoft-google-and-alibaba-strengthen-their-grip-public-cloud-market.  
80 According to media reports and Commission’s calculations, the annual IT budget of the top 6 EU banks (i.e. BNP Paribas, 
Credit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Banco Santander, ING) is estimated at around 24 billion EUR. A survey 
by Deloitte and FS-ISAC, shows that banks, insurers, investment management firms and other financial services companies 
spend anywhere from 6 to 14% of their information technology budget on cybersecurity, averaging 10%. The estimated range 
of €29 to 68 million is calculated by multiplying the 2% with the estimated annual IT budget of the top 6 EU banks (i.e. €24 
billion), and with the range of 6 to 14% of cybersecurity share in the total IT budget.  
Source: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/cybersecurity-maturity-financial-institutions-
cyber-risk.html.     

42 

 
                                                 
illustrate  the  scale  of  savings  in  the  banking  sector  where,  according  to  ECB81  and  SRB82 
data,  around  44  banking  groups  are  undertaking  cross-border  activities  in  the  EU,  the  total 
expected benefits could range between €11 and 88 million.83 

Under this option, the objective of increasing consumer and investor protection would be 
also  achieved.  A  strengthened  digital  operational  resilient  EU  financial  sector  would 
indirectly  benefit  both  consumers  and  investor,  as  they  would  be  better  protected  from 
suffering  the  consequences  of  ICT-related  incidents  occurring  at  financial  institutions.  It  is 
very likely that their trust in the financial sector would accordingly also increase. 

Costs (direct, indirect, regulatory charges, administrative costs) 

For  financial  institutions:  the  one-off  adjustment  costs,  represented  by  investments  in  IT 
systems and a general improvement of qualitative ICT risk requirements,  are not possible to 
quantify  given  the  wide  divergence  in  banks’  legacy  systems,  their  current  level  of 
preparedness and resilience (e.g. policies, controls, procedures), etc. However, they would be 
higher  than  under  the  previous  options.  Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  highlighted 
that  they  are  anyway  planning  improvements  and  significant  investment  programs  in  their 
ICT  systems  for  the  years  to  come.  For  instance,  according  to  media  review  and 
Commission’s calculations, the top 4 EU banks84 have announced a total annual spending of 
around €1.1 billion on cyber security over the next years. 

In terms of recurring costs, a survey by Deloitte and FS-ISAC85 shows that on average banks, 
insurers, investment management firms and other financial services companies spend between 
6% and 14% of their IT budget on cybersecurity, with an average of 10%. While at first sight, 
these investments seems to be an important part of their IT budget, in terms of revenues, they 
account to a range of between 0.2% and 0.9% of the total revenues, with an average of about 
0.3%.  While  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  recurring  costs  of  a  general  improvement  of 
qualitative ICT risk requirements, it could be estimated that bringing ICT requirements up to 
a  decent  standard  for  all  financial  institutions  would  mean  that  institutions  which  have 
spending  below  the  average  would  have  to  bring  this  up  to  the  average.  Another  survey  by 
Deutsche Bank86 provides a breakdown on how much of the IT spending is dedicated to cyber 
security by financial institutions. On average, around 10% of financial institutions are below 
the  6%-14%  range  mentioned  above.  Taking  into  account  the  total  number  of  entities 
operating  in  the  EU  financial  sector87,  it  could  be  therefore  estimated  that  around  2100 
financial institutions would be affected by the initiative, and would need to make additional 
investments of up to 5% of their IT budget to reach the lower bound of the average. However, 
these recurring implementation costs in practice are expected to be much lower for both big 

81 https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/banking/list/who/html/index.en.html  
82 https://srb.europa.eu/sites/srbsite/files/23_december_2019_list_of_other_cross_border_groups.pdf  
83  The  estimated  range  of  €11  to  88  million  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  banks  (i.e.  44),  by  the  amount  of 
savings resulting from performing one single test instead of 2 to 5 tests. This translated into potentially up to 1 test less for 
the lower bound, and up to 4 tests less for the upper bound. 
84 Source: media review  and Commission’s calculations, based on data reported for BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole, Societe 
Generale and Banco Santander. 
85 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/cybersecurity-maturity-financial-institutions-cyber-

risk.html.  

86 https://www.db.com/newsroom_news/Deutsche_Bank_Investor_Report.pdf  
87 According to the impact assessment accompanying the review of the European Supervisory Authorities, (SWD(2017) 308, 
there  are  around  2,666  insurance  undertakings,  1,573  IORPS,  2,500  Investment  management  companies,  350  Market 
infrastructures  (such  as  CCPs,  stock  exchanges,  systemic  internalisers,  trade  repositories  and MTFs),  45  CRAs;  and  5,665 
Credit institutions, 5,934 Investment firms and 2,500 Authorised payment institutions and electronic money institutions. This 
sums up to approx. 21.233 entities. 

43 

 
                                                 
and  smaller  financial  institutions.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  big  financial  institutions  have 
already increased their spending on ICT and cyber security, while for smaller institutions the 
costs  are  expected  to  be  lower  as  proportionality  would  apply  in  calibrating  the  measures. 
Finally,  those  financial  institutions  which  are  currently  at  suboptimal  levels  of  digital 
operational resilience, could expect to incur higher recurring costs.  

On  testing,  for  those  financial  institutions  which  are  not  participating  in  TLPTs  today  but 
would  be  required  to  do  so  in  the  future,  we  estimate  that  under  this  option  around  100 
financial  institutions88  would  be  subject  to  TLPT,  and  they  would  be  subject  to  additional 
costs. Costs of financial institutions’ participation in testing are in the range of €250-500.000 
per  test,  depending  on  the  scope.  In  their  technical  advice,  the  ESAs  estimate  the  costs  of 
threat  led penetration testing to  amount to a range between 0.1% and 0.3% of the total  ICT 
budget.  Therefore,  we  could  estimate  that  the  total  costs  for  testing  the  100  financial 
institutions  under  this  option  would  be  in  the  range  of  €25  to  €50  million.  These  costs  will 
have to compared to the cost reductions due to the mutual recognition of testing, for financial 
institutions which are currently may be subject to several cyber resilience testing frameworks 
implemented in different Member States, and this is particularly relevant for those operating 
cross-border,  as  evidenced  by  the  responses  to  the  public  consultation  (see  above;  for  more 
details see point 3.3. of Annex 3). Overall, cost associated to TLPTs are high, but lower than 
under  the  “do  nothing”  scenario  where  an  uncoordinated  increase  of  TLPTs  with  limited 
cross-border recognition would impose duplicative costs for cross-sector financial institutions.  

The costs for financial institutions’ participation in threat intelligence sharing schemes are 
wide-ranging and vary depending on the type of initiative, sometimes they are also based on 
entities’  assets  or  revenues,  and  may  include  membership  fees  (e.g.  from  basic  to  premium 
membership),  travelling  costs,  staff  deployed,  IT  costs  for  the  installation  and  set-up  of  an 
intelligence  sharing  platform,  etc.  On  average,  these  costs  which  are  recurring  on  a  multi-
annual  basis  range  between  €1.000  and  €50.000,  plus  1  to  3  FTEs.  Under  this  option, 
participation  for  financial  institutions  would  be  encouraged  but  still  remain  voluntary, 
therefore no additional costs are foreseen as compared to the baseline.   

Costs  in  relation  to  incident  reporting  would  be  drastically  reduced  (see  above,  under 
benefits)  under  this  option  due  to  no  reporting  under  the  NIS  Directive  and  no  double 
reporting to the national supervisor and the SSM for significant banks. However, there would 
also be new costs (e.g. additional FTEs, setting up IT systems, developing internal templates, 
etc.)  for  those  financial  institutions  that  are  not  so  far  subject  to  any  incident  reporting  and 
will have to report ICT related incidents. The number of reported incidents would very much 
depend on the proportionality of the future rules and the calibration of materiality thresholds 
that  would  trigger  reporting  (e.g.  major  incidents).  According  to  industry  data89  and 
Commission’s calculation, it is estimated that on average, the one-off costs for a big European 
bank  for  developing  an  internal  template  for  incident  reporting  would  amount  to  approx. 
€9.000.  Under  this  option,  we  can  estimate  the  total  additional  one-off  costs  for  financial 

88 According to the impact assessment accompanying the review of the European Supervisory Authorities, (SWD(2017) 308, 
there are approx. 21.233 entities operating in the EU financial sector. If we assume that on average around 1% of them are 
significant in terms of e.g. their size, cross-border activity, their economic importance for the EU or national economy, etc., 
this results in around 200 entities. Furthermore, we estimate that at least 50% of these institutions are already being tested 
under different frameworks, which leaves us with around 100 untested entities. 
89 These estimations are based on a limited survey to a few big European banks, and thus should be considered as a limited 
representation of the (whole) European banking sector. 

44 

 
                                                 
institutions  in  the range  of €9  and €18 million90 and recurring  costs for managing incidents 
and reporting (e.g. classification of incidents, regulatory scouting, updating templates, etc.) in 
the range of €18 to €36 million91. 

For ICT TPPs: costs would be higher than under the previous options, as they would have to 
adopt  organisational  changes  to  allow  for  the  oversight  of  their  operations.  However,  these 
costs would remain manageable, especially if a horizontal, sector-agnostic supervision on ICT 
TPPs  emerges  in  the  future.  According  to  industry  data  and  Commission’s  calculation,  it  is 
estimated that on average, the staffing costs for an ICT TPPs that would be subject to a direct 
oversight by financial supervisors would be in the range of 2 to 6  FTEs.  At the same time, 
TPPs  would  see  a  reduction  in  the  costs  to  deal  with  a  multitude  of  requests  for  access  to 
information, audit, etc. by numerous financial institutions prompted by their supervisors.  

For  supervisors:  the  current  costs  for  supervisory  authorities  associated  to  ICT  supervision 
are  between  5%  and  10%  of  the  total  IT  supervision  staff.  Under  this  option,  a  marginal 
increase in FTEs could be expected, due to the additional tasks supervisors would have to deal 
with  (e.g.  including  additional  reporting  of  incidents).  For  instance,  for  those  supervisory 
authorities  that  would  take  part  in  the  direct  oversight  of  ICT  TPPs  (e.g.  cooperation 
agreements,  joint  inspections  and  exchange  of  information),  the  estimated  increase  in  FTEs 
could fall in the range of 1 to 5 FTEs for the leading authority, and around 0.25 FTEs for the 
participating authorities. On the other hand, supervisory authorities that would not participate 
in  the  oversight  arrangements  of  ICT  TPPs,  would  still  benefit  from  the  outcome  of  such 
oversight (e.g. financial institutions under their direct supervision would use the services and 
products of the overseen ICT TPPs). In addition, as a result of the direct supervisory oversight 
of ICT TPPs, the costs associated with the indirect oversight for financial institutions would 
be significantly reduced.  

4.3.2.  Overall assessment of the option 

The  main  advantage  under  this  scenario  is  that  a  comprehensive  framework  on  digital 
operational resilience would be very effective in improving the digital operational resilience 
of the financial sector. It would ensure full clarity and coherence within the Single Rulebook. 
It  would  also  make  the  interaction  with  the  NIS  Directive  and  its  review  clearer  and  more 
coherent. It  would also  bring clarity to financial institutions on the different rules on digital 
operational resilience they need to comply with, in particular for institutions that hold several 
authorisations  and  operate  in  different  markets  within  the  EU.  In  addition,  the  double 
requirements  on  reporting  would  be  eliminated,  thus  reducing  one  of  the  most  significant 
burdens  for  financial  institutions.  This  option  therefore  creates  only  limited  additional 
administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  financial  institutions  and  supervisors  (especially 
when  compared  to  the  potential  costs  of  cyber  incidents),  while  reducing  administrative 
burden for all financial institutions and in particular for those operating across borders. 

90 According to the impact assessment accompanying the review of the European Supervisory Authorities, (SWD(2017) 308, 
there  are  approx.  21.233  entities  operating  in  the  EU  financial  sector.  According  to  the  public  consultation,  mostly  all 
respondents  are  currently  subject  to  ICT  and  security  incident  reporting  requirements  that  either  stem  from  regulation, 
supervisory  expectations  or  industry  best  practices  (see  point 3.2  of  Annex  3).  If  we  assume  that  around  80%  of  financial 
institutions are already subject to such reporting, and that due to proportionality and materiality thresholds, between 25 and 
50% of institutions would be subject to new rules, this translates into 1000 and 2000 financial institutions.  
91  According  to  industry  data  and  Commission’s  calculation,  the  recurring  costs  associated  to  managing  and  reporting 
incidents are around €18.000/year for a big European banks. Taking as reference this figure, and using the same methodology 
and assumptions as for the one-off costs, we could estimate the recurring costs to be in the range of €18 to €36 million. 

45 

 
                                                 
In terms of disadvantages, this option may not tackle the issues arising from ICT TPPs to the 
fullest  extent.  An  oversight  framework  with  potential  participation  of  up  to  27  prudential 
supervisors  would  require  convergence  and  an  ongoing  dialogue.  Moreover,  ICT  TPP 
oversight may not eliminate concentration risks given that the ICT TTPs market is currently 
dominated by four large players, all of them non-European. Indeed, some respondents to the 
public consultation point out that requirements to limit the concentration of ICT TPPs would 
be challenging to implement both for financial institutions and for overseers (for more details 
see point 3.7 of Annex 3).  

Effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 

Overall, option 2 is effective in achieving the objectives of the initiative at reasonable costs. It 
also appropriately balances the interaction with the current horizontal EU framework (e.g. the 
NIS Directive). A comprehensive, coherent and integrated framework for digital operational 
resilience would enhance the digital dimension of the Single Rulebook compared to the status 
quo.  It  would also  bring  clarity to  financial institutions on these aspects, something that the 
majority  of  stakeholders  responding  to  the  public  consultations  calls  for.  This  option  also 
minimizes disruption, as some of the measures envisaged are already reflected in general or 
more specific EU financial provisions.  

Impact on stakeholders 

Based on the above assessment, the following table summarizes the benefits and costs of the 
option  for  each  category  of  stakeholders,  while  the  vertical  arrows  present  the  estimated 
impact for these stakeholders: 

Consumers/investors  Financial institutions 

ICT TPPs 

Supervisors 

Benefits 

Costs 

↑↑↑ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑ 

4.4. Option  3:  A  financial  services  digital  operational  resilience  act  together  with 

centralised supervision of activities of critical ICT TPPs  

Under  this  option,  the  Commission  would  propose  a  bespoke  and  detailed  EU  regulatory 
framework  that  would  completely  replace  all  existing  relevant  provisions  on  ICT  risk 
management  across  all  EU  financial  services  legislation,  i.e.  repeal  all  digital  operational 
resilience  provisions  in  level  1  legislation  (directives  and  regulations),  and  replace  all 
empowerments  on  the  basis  of  which  level  2  legislation  (regulatory  and  implementing 
technical  standards),  have  been  adopted  so  far.  Moreover,  to  ensure  full  legal  clarity  and 
eliminate  residual  confusions  stemming  from  overlaps  and  leading  to  duplications,  the 
Commission  would  propose to  extract  from  the NIS Directive the three  financial subsectors 
currently  under  scope,  both  from  the  substantial  provisions  (incident  reporting  and  ICT 
requirements),  as  well  as  from  those  related  to  the  NIS  “ecosystem”  (e.g.  CERTs,  NIS 
cooperation group). Cooperation and exchanges of information between financial supervisors 
and NIS authorities and ENISA would be maintained with the aim that  financial supervisors 
be aware of  cyber incidents  affecting the economy  sectors covered by the NIS Directive.  A 
new Authority for cybersecurity in the financial services sectors would be created to supervise 
the digital operational resilience related activities of critical ICT TPPs providing their services 
to financial institutions.  

46 

 
 
 
In practical terms, for each of the building blocks this option would entail:  

a)  ICT risk management: full harmonisation in the same way as under option 2.  

b)  Incident  reporting  and  information  sharing:  again,  EU  harmonisation  regarding 
incident  reporting  would  be  achieved  similarly  to  option  2.  However,  opposed  to 
option  2,  information  sharing  on  key  lessons  and  main  vulnerabilities  would  be  not 
only  encouraged,  but  actually  mandated.  The  Commission  would  invite  competent 
authorities  to  create  platforms  where  threat  information  is  shared  among  peers  in  a 
trusted  environment  and  with  the  participation  of  relevant  competent  authorities  in 
their oversight, data analytics or law enforcement capacities. 

c)  Digital operational resilience testing: different from option 2 that is based on mutual 
recognition  of  testing  results  among  national  authorities,  under  this  option  the  ESAs 
would  coordinate  a  European  testing  exercise.  The  consequent  update  for  financial 
institutions based on the testing results would have a prudential impact, too, e.g. on the 
capital of the financial institution.  

d)  ICT third party risk: going beyond the oversight framework detailed under option 2, 
the  Commission  would  propose  the  creation  of  a  new  EU  authority  in  the  financial 
sector that would be in charge of supervising the activities of critical ICT TPPs when 
they  provide  their  services  to  financial  institutions.  Such  authority  would  closely 
cooperate  with  national  competent  authorities,  the  ESAs,  ENISA,  and  the  ECB.  It 
would be within its mandate to tackle concentration risk by imposing a CRR-inspired 
large  exposure  regime  on  financial  institutions,  in  addition  to  a  registration 
requirement for all ICT TPPs. In the future, such authority could be integrated under a 
possible  EU  cross-sectoral  authority  supervising  critical  ICT  TTPs  that  provide 
services to all EU-based companies.  

4.4.1.  Assessment of the impact 

Benefits 

Reduce the risk to financial sector stability and integrity: two out of six specific objectives 
in  Table  2  would  be  achieved  in  the  same  manner  as  under  option  2  (address  ICT  security 
risks  more  comprehensively  and  testing).  The  other  four  specific  objectives  would  be 
surpassed.   

In  terms  of  novelty  compared  to  option  2,  the  obligation  of  financial  institutions  to  report 
incidents  exclusively  to  the  financial  supervisor  would  be  made  even  clearer  as  a  result  of 
disapplying NIS to the financial sector. Currently, and despite the lex specialis clause in the 
NIS Directive, several Member States require multiple and different notifications, sometimes 
the  first  notification  being  processed  by  the  NIS  authority,  which  can  be  different  from  the 
financial  supervisor  (for  more  details  see  point  3.6  of  Annex  3).  Option  2  would  already 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the notification system, as incident  notifications 
would be processed in  principle directly  by financial supervisors. However, under Option  2 
some uncertainty and potential for overlap for financial institutions might remain due to the 
continued link to the NIS ecosystem, but Option 3 would eliminate that.  

47 

 
 
Under this option, a coordinated European testing exercise would ensure even more consistent 
quality and coherent results of digital operational resilience testing across the EU. In addition, 
under  this  option  a  mandatory  approach  on  sharing  threat  intelligence  between  financial 
institutions  would  be  followed.  If  made  mandatory,  sharing  of  information  would  be  less 
effective as the quality of the information shared would drastically decrease. That is because 
sharing platforms today have been built over time upon trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit. 

A new dedicated Authority would ensure a fully effective supervision of ICT TPPs providing 
services to the financial sector. While an overwhelming majority of respondents to the public 
consultation supported the introduction of an oversight framework for critical ICT TPPs, few 
respondents  suggested  that  a  European  organization  should  be  responsible  with  sufficient 
mandate  and  authority  to  perform  this  task  as  mostly  large,  global  service  providers  are  in 
scope. An extension of the remit of existing authorities such as ENISA or BEREC, or a new 
focused Authority, was also proposed to be used (for more details, see point 3.4 of Annex 3). 

Reducing  administrative  burden  and  increase  supervisory  effectiveness:  both  specific 
objectives detailed in Table 2 would be achieved under this option.  

Costs (direct, indirect, regulatory charges, administrative costs) 

For financial institutions: the costs for ICT and testing would be the same as under option 2, 
with  the  novelty  that  1)  administrative  burden  and  uncertainty  around  incident  notification 
would  be  reduced  even  more  and  2)  significant  higher  costs  would  arise  because  of  the 
obligation  to  share  threat  intelligence  under  this  option.  As  mentioned  under  option  2,  the 
recurring  cost  estimates  for  participating  in  such  initiatives  range  between  €1.000  and 
€50.000, plus 1 to 3 FTEs. Such added costs might not be immediately amortised against the 
possible  losses  caused  by  ICT-related  incidents  and  gains  by  having  access  to  the  right 
information and the right time.  

For  supervisors:  the  costs  of  ICT  supervision  would  be  in  line  with  those  under  option  2. 
Costs of supervision of ICT TPPs would be the highest given the set-up of a new Authority, 
where  most  staff  would  be  detached  from  the  national  competent  authorities,  at  least  in  the 
early  years  after  creation.  In  terms  of  quantifying  the  costs  associated  to  setting  up  a  new 
authority, a benchmark could be used to estimate such costs. Based on previous assessments 
for supervising comparable operators at EU level,92 we would estimate the costs associated to 
new supervisory powers at (i) €5.5 million of one-off costs, and (ii) around 22 FTEs for one 
authority. Therefore, the total cost covering all three ESAs could be estimated around  €16.5 
million and around 66 FTEs. 

4.4.2.  Overall assessment of the option 

The main advantage is that this option would provide for a coherent harmonised framework 
for the financial sector covering all the building blocks and a powerful financial supervision 
of  ICT  TPPs.  Completely  dis-applying  the  NIS  Directive  to  the  financial  sector  would 
eliminate any risk of confusion and practical difficulties in the interaction between horizontal 
and  sectoral  framework  (for  example  for  those  cross-border  financial  institutions  that  have 
been designated as OESs in one Member State, but not in the other Member States where they 
operate, as it would be clear to which authorities they must report). It would also ensure in the 

92 Impact Assessment accompanying the review of the European Supervisory Authorities, (SWD(2017) 308. 

48 

 
                                                 
best  possible  way  that  financial  supervisors  can  combine  information  from  within  the 
financial  sector  stemming  from  all  Member  States  and  all  parts  of  the  financial  sector.  A 
direct  supervision  of  ICT  TPPs  by  financial  supervisors  would  ensure  that  they  are  in  full 
control of any risks for financial stability and market integrity arising from them. 

However, this option would raise several issues: 

1)  First,  the  benefit  of  creating  a  dedicated  authority  for  ICT  third  party  supervision  in 
the financial sector, having a mono-sectoral approach in a landscape where ICT TPPs 
provide their services cross-sector would be questionable and legally challenging. This 
could also lead to higher costs and administrative burden for ICT TPPs, which would 
need  to  adapt  to  a  multiplicity  of  different  supervisory  regimes  in  all  the  different 
sectors to which they provide services (e.g. health, energy, telecoms, etc.).  

2)  Second, completely dis-applying the NIS Directive to the financial sector could create 
a  gap  in  the  national  cyber  security  strategy  of  each  Member  State,  and  financial 
supervisors  might  not  be  aware  of  cyber  incidents  affecting  other  societal  sectors 
covered  by  the  NIS  Directive.  This  is  substantiated  by  some  replies  to  the  public 
consultation,  that  stress  that  being  within  the  NIS  universe  is  good  for  financial 
institutions, as they can learn from experiences in other sectors (for more details see 
point 3.6 of Annex 3). Financial institutions previously covered by the NIS Directive 
might  probably  still  encounter  practical  difficulties  to  exit  the  NIS  ecosystem  and 
structures in the context of the review of the NIS Directive.  

3)  Lastly, even the high level of ambition for digital operational resilience in the financial 
sector represented by this option could not guarantee the new act to be future proof as 
ICT risks continuously evolve. Some technicalities around testing would be difficult to 
solve, such as the risk of concentration of expertise of external testers and the ESAs 
coordination role in TLPTs. Even with registration requirements for all ICT TPPs, the 
sub-outsourcing chain could still allow shadow ICT providers located outside the EU 
to escape supervision by EU financial supervisors.  

Effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 

Overall, this option would be effective in achieving all the objectives of the initiative, but in a 
much  less  efficient  way,  as  the  corresponding  costs  would  be  significantly  higher  (e.g.  the 
costs associated with setting up a new authority, to compulsory sharing of threat intelligence, 
and  costs  related  to  the  coordination  role  of  the  ESAs  on  the  cross-authority  testing).  In 
addition, this option would be less coherent with the current horizontal EU framework, as the 
financial  sector  would  be  completely  extracted  from  the  application  of  the  NIS  Directive, 
albeit  the  cooperation  and  exchanges  of  information  maintained.  This  could  neutralise  the 
benefits  resulting  from  the  current  cross-authority  cooperation  established  under  the  NIS 
Cooperation Group. Therefore, whereas the option would guarantee effectiveness in achieving 
the objectives, it would do so at high costs and greater incoherence with the current horizontal 
EU framework. 

Impact on stakeholders 

Based on the above assessment, the following table summarizes the benefits and costs of the 
option  for  each  category  of  stakeholders,  while  the  vertical  arrows  present  the  estimated 
impact for these stakeholders.  

49 

 
 
Consumers/investors  Financial institutions 

ICT TPPs 

Supervisors 

Benefits 

Costs 

↑↑↑ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑↑ 

4.5. Comparison of options 

Table  4  below  summarises  the  extent  to  which  the  options  are  effective,  efficient  and 
coherent. The effectiveness of the options is mapped against the specific objectives set out in 
section 3. The respective scores are attributed based on the detailed analysis performed under 
each of the options. The scores represent the sum of pluses and minuses. 

Table 4 – Summary of options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency  Coherence 

Score 

Objective 1: 
Reduce  the  risk  of 
financial  disruption 
and instability 

Objective 2: 
Reduce 
administrative 
burden 

Objective 3: 
Increase consumer 
and investor 
protection 

“Do 
nothing” 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

0 

–  

++ 

++ 

0 

–  

++ 

++ 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

0 

+ 

+ 

≈   

0 

++ 

+ 

≈   

0 

2 

8 

6 

Magnitude of impact as compared with the “do nothing” scenario (the “do nothing” scenario is 
indicated as 0): ++ strongly positive (score 2); + positive (score 1); – – strongly negative (score -
2); – negative (score -1); ≈ neutral (score 0); 

Table  4  shows  that  option  1  is  not  effective  in  terms  of  meeting  the  objectives,  whereas 
options  2  and  3  are  very  effective.  Option  1  would  not  reduce  administrative  burden 
(objective 2) given the higher  capital  needed to  create the new buffers, hence a “-“. Capital 
buffers do not reduce ICT risks (objective 1), hence a “-”. Only post incidents can they help 
financial institutions overcome the losses incurred, but they would not contribute to building 
up institutions’ operational resilience (e.g. preparedness and ability to withstand and recover). 
Capital buffers would still be an efficient way forward because better-capitalised institutions 
could  better  withstand  the  losses  caused  by  ICT  disruptions,  and  also  reduce  the  potential 
impact on their customers, hence a “+”.  

The main difference between options 2 and 3 is their efficiency, as option 3 is more costly to 
implement,  and their coherence.  In option 3, the higher costs for setting  up a new authority 
and mandatory participation  in  information  sharing platforms would be compensated by the 
ESAs coordination of testing exercises and the complete extraction from NIS, that would do 
away with all duplications on incident reporting that might still subside if the financial sector 
stayed associated with NIS, hence a neutral score “≈”. In terms of effectiveness, both option 2 
and 3 reduce risks to financial stability and reduce administrative burdens.   

In terms of coherence, option 1 scores the best, while option 3 is the least coherent with the 
current horizontal EU framework due to the complete extraction from NIS. In sum, the option 
which promises the best possible balance across the three criteria of effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence is option 2. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
After  having  established  how  the  options  score  in  terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence, table 5 below presents how the options score in terms of the level of stakeholder 
support. 

Table 5 – Summary of pros/cons and stakeholders support 

Options 

Total score for  
Effectiveness/ efficiency/ coherence 

Stakeholders 
support 

Option 1 

Low (2) 

Option 2  High (8) 

Option 3  Medium (6) 

Low 

High 

Medium 

Table  5  shows  that  options  2  presents  the  best  combination  of  the  criteria  of  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence underlined by the high score. At the same time, stakeholders support 
is high for option 2, medium for option 3, while it is low for option 193.   

4.6. Retained option 

In  light  of  the  above  comparison,  the  retained  option  is  Option  2:  a  digital  operational 
resilience  act  for  the  financial  sector.  Compared  to  the  other  options,  it  is  the  one  that 
achieves  most  of  the  objectives  of  the  initiative,  while  taking  into  account  the  criteria  of 
efficiency and coherence. This option also enjoys most support from the stakeholders. Under 
this  option,  a  comprehensive  digital  operational  resilience  act  for  the  EU  financial  sector 
would bring a coherent and integrated framework for digital operational resilience and would 
enhance  the  digital  dimension  of  the  Single  Rulebook.  At  the  same  time,  this  option 
minimises  disruption  and  transition  costs  with  respect  to  the  existing  EU  financial  services 
legislation.  It  furthermore  appropriately  balances  the  interaction  with  the  current  horizontal 
framework (e.g. the NIS Directive), and accommodates the different features of the initiative 
with the consistency that is necessary for achieving coherence at EU level.  

Option  1 which  would imply an increase in  capital  requirements  for financial institutions is 
not considered feasible to implement, less so in an economic recession context. Indeed, in the 
context of COVID-19, several Member States and the ECB have taken additional measures to 
alleviate the expected adverse effects of the outbreak on the economy. At international level, 
the BCBS has also decided to delay the implementation of the new Basel rules to strengthen 
the capital  of banks. Similarly, Option  3 would entail  substantial  costs  for setting up  a new 
dedicated agency for the oversight  of TPPs, and  therefore this option is  also  not  considered 
viable in the current context.    

In  Annex  4,  the  detailed  provisions  under  the  retained  option  are  described,  giving  an 
indication of what possible core requirements might entail in practice. 

93  Even  though  the  public  consultation did not  include  questions  on  quantitative  measures  such  as  capital  charges,  several 
respondents provided feedback on this issue. Overall, they highlighted that developing rules requiring financial firms to hold 
sufficient capital may serve as proxies for increased trust in the financial sector, but will have limited effectiveness in tacking 
cyber  risks.  In  addition,  it  will  drive  firms’  resources  to  satisfy  regulatory  compliance,  rather  than  continuously  assessing 
their maturity and posture to build increased levels of resiliency. 

51 

 
                                                 
5.  OTHER SPECIFIC IMPACTS OF THE RETAINED POLICY OPTION 

5.1. Impacts on SMEs 

The  policy  option  chosen  would  have  several  positive  effects  on  SMEs  operating  in  the 
financial  services  industry.  Direct  benefits  stem  from  the  fact  that  the  retained  option  will 
define  a  clear  and  standardised  digital  operational  resilience  framework  across  the  EU 
financial  sector.  Furthermore,  the  proportionality  enshrined  in  the  option  (for  example 
limiting  advanced  testing  to  the  most  systemic  financial  institutions)  ensures  that  higher 
digital  operational  resilience  does  not  come  with  disproportionate  economic  costs. 
Proportionality will be designed in terms of scope and intensity, through the use of qualitative 
and  quantitative  assessment  criteria  to  ensure  that  while  the  new  rules  cover  all  financial 
entities, they remain in the same time tailored to risks and needs of specific entities as well as 
to their size and business profiles.  

By strengthening the digital security and resilience components of the EU Single Rulebook, 
market  participants  will  benefit  from  a  single  set  of  rules  for  sound  and  proper  digital 
operational  risk management, for incident notification (in particular by limiting duplications 
of  reporting  requirements)  and  testing.  Furthermore,  a  harmonised  set  of  rules  would  allow 
SMEs to take up European and international standards that can have a positive impact on their 
capacity to operate cross-border.  

Finally, the new EU regulatory framework will bring clarity to SMEs on the different rules on 
digital operational resilience they need to comply with, in particular for institutions that hold 
several  authorisations  and  operate  in  different  markets  within  the  EU.  This  would  be  of  a 
particular added value for smaller and medium sized financial institutions that in general have 
less resources for hiring consultancy and legal advice firms for assessing them on compliance 
with the complex regulatory framework. 

5.2. Social impacts 

The main social impacts of the retained policy option would be on consumers and investors. 
Digital operational failures and incidents may trigger severe direct and indirect consequences 
for the EU financial system and its participants.  

Through the creation of a standardised set of rules governing digital operational resilience in 
the  financial  sector,  market  participants  will  be  encouraged  to  invest  in  technological 
solutions  to  ensure  higher  levels  of  security,  thus  enhancing  the  ecosystem’s  overall 
resilience. It is reasonable to expect that to higher levels of digital security of the EU financial 
system corresponds a decrease in the number of incidents, in their average cost as well as in 
less reputational consequences for affected entities. Hence, as also highlighted by the majority 
of the responses to the public consultation, the entire ecosystem will be perceived as safer and 
more resilient, especially by end-users, once the retained policy option will be applicable. The 
society as a whole would benefit from the increased trust in the financial services industry. 

Again,  given  that  COVID-19  may  further  accentuate  the  digitalisation  of  financial  services, 
the  benefits  associated  with  measures  ensuring  digital  operational  resilience  are  likely  to 
increase. 

52 

 
5.3. Environmental impacts 

In the EU, energy consumption in the services sector increased annually by 0.6% on average 
in  the period 2005-2017.94  The energy demand of  electrical  appliances, in  particular of  ICT 
appliances and other energy-intensive technologies, is increasing. It is therefore important to 
encourage  the  adoption  of  low-emission  technologies95 in  line  with  the  objectives  set  out  in 
the Commission Communication on the European Green Deal and the Commission Industrial 
Strategy.96  

The  policy  option  chosen  would  encourage  an  enhanced  use  of  the  latest  generation  ICT 
infrastructures and services, which are environmentally more sustainable. It will also provide 
legal  clarity  on  the  arrangements  with  ICT  TPP,  which  in  turn  is  expected  to  increase  their 
use.  ICT  TPPs  are  in  general  more  energy  efficient  than  in  house  ICT  infrastructure.  The 
higher efficiency levels of recent security technologies and infrastructures will contribute to a 
reduction  in  the  consumption  of  electricity,  of  water  and  other  liquids  used  to  cool  data 
centres, thus  having  a positive impact on the environment through the reduction of harmful 
emissions. New and smart technologies also are built with eco-friendly materials, which will 
facilitate the recycling after their lifecycle is completed. 

6.   MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

This section describes the measures to monitor and evaluate the impact of the preferred option 
on the specific objectives. 

The first review will take place three years after the entry into force of the legal instrument. 
The Commission  would provide a report to  the European Parliament  and  the Council on its 
evaluation accompanied where appropriate by a proposal for its review. The review could be 
supported by a public consultation, studies, expert discussions, surveys, workshops, etc.   

Table 6 provides a list of indicators that will be used to monitor progress towards achieving 
the objectives. 

Table 6 - List of indicators to monitor progress towards achieving the objectives 

Objectives 

Monitoring indicators 

Sources of data 

General Objective 1: Reduce the risk of 
financial instability 

  Specific objective 1: address ICT security 
risks more comprehensively and strengthen 
the overall level of digital resilience of the 
financial sector 

  Specific objective 2: enable financial 

supervisors’ access to information on ICT-
related incidents 

  Specific objective 3: ensure that financial 
institutions assess the effectiveness of their 
preventive and resilience capabilities and 

1) Number of ICT-related 
incidents in the EU financial 
sector and their impact 

2) Number of significant ICT 
security incidents reported to 
prudential supervisors 

ESAs 

ESAs 

3) Number of financial 
institutions that perform a 
TLPT tests 

ESAs 
Industry feedback 

94 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/final-energy-consumption-by-sector-10/assessment. 
95 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf.  
96 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_425.  

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
identify ICT vulnerabilities   

  Specific objective 4: strengthen the 

outsourcing rules governing the indirect 
oversight of ICT TPPs 

  Specific objective 5: enable a direct 

oversight of the activities of ICT TPPs 

  Specific objective 6: incentivise the 
exchange of threat intelligence in the 
financial sector 

General Objective 2: Reduce administrative 
burden 

  Specific objective 1: streamline ICT-related 
incident reporting and address overlapping 
requirements  

  Specific objective 2: reduce single market 
fragmentation and enable cross-border 
acceptance of testing results 

4) Number of financial 
institutions using Standard 
Contractual Clauses  

5) Number of ICT TPPs 
overseen by prudential 
supervisors 

ESAs 
Industry feedback 

ESAs 

6) Number of financial 
institutions participating in TI 
solutions 

ESAs 
Industry feedback 

7) Number of authorities to 
report the same incident 

ESAs 
Industry feedback 

8) Number of cross-border 
TLPTs   

ESAs 
Industry feedback 

In terms of the reporting and collecting the data, indicators 1, 2 and 5 would be provided by 
the  ESAs.  Indicators  3,  4,  7  and  8  are  to  be  provided  by  both  supervisors  and  financial 
institutions.  Finally,  concerning  indicator  6,  given  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  measures 
envisaged, this indicator will need the involvement of the industry.  

The  ESAs  will  collect  the  data  on  these  indicators  on  an  annual  basis.  In  addition,  at  the 
beginning of each year the ESAs should (where applicable) set targets vis-à-vis the indicators 
to allow comparison to the previous year. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide planning / CWP references 

This  Impact  Assessment  Report  was  prepared  by  Directorate  B  "Horizontal  policies"  of  the 
Directorate  General  "Directorate-General  for  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and 
Capital Markets Union" (DG FISMA).  

The  Decide  Planning  reference  of  the  "Digital  Operational  Resilience  of  Financial  Services 
(DORFS) Act" is PLAN/2019/6126.  

The  initiative  on  strengthening  the  digital  operational  resilience  of  the  EU  financial  sector 
entities was included in the 2020 Commission Work Programme published on 29.01.2020. 

2.  Organisation and timing 

Three Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) meetings were held in 2020. The ISSG consisted 
of  representatives  from  various  Directorates-General  of  the  Commission:  CNECT,  HOME, 
COMP,  GROW,  JUST,  TAXUD,  ECFIN,  RTD,  DEVCO,  NEAR,  JRC,  and  SJ.  The  ISSG 
met on 4 March 2020, 2 April 2020 and 22 April 2020. The meetings were chaired by SG.   

The contributions of the members of the Steering Group have been taken into account in the 
content and shape of this impact assessment. 

3.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)  

The Impact Assessment report was examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 27 
May 2020. The RSB gave a positive opinion with reservations on 29 May 2020. 

DG  FISMA  has  updated  the  impact  assessment  report  to  incorporate  the  recommendations 
received by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

Main considerations 

RSB recommendation 

1)  The report does not sufficiently focus on the 
political decisions to take. It does not provide 
enough information to judge issues of 
proportionality.   

2)  The  report  does  not  adequately  account  
for  advice  from  the  European supervisory 
agencies, or explain how and why the 
preferred option deviates from it. 

Response to RSB’s recommendation 

The  impact  assessment  has  been  revised  to  more 
clearly  explain  how  proportionality  would  be 
embedded in the initiative.  

The  impact  assessment  has  been  revised  to  further 
explain the extent to which the initiative takes into 
the 
account 
European  Supervisory  Authorities,  as  well  as 
international guidance and best practices. 

technical  advice  from 

joint 

the 

3)  The report does not demonstrate that the 
preferred option is the optimal solution. 

The  impact  assessment  has  been  revised  to  further 
substantiate the comparison of the different options. 

4)  The report does not adequately explain how 
this initiative would work together with 
parallel EU legislation that is also under 

The  impact  assessment  has  been  revised  to  further 
explain  the  interaction  with  the  existing  horizontal 
legislation (e.g. NIS Directive and ECI Directive). 

55 

 
revision. 

4.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The  impact  assessment  has  been  carried  out  with  the  comprehensive  qualitative  and 
quantitative  evidence  from  various  recognised  sources,  including  the  two  joint  technical 
advices  by  the  European  Supervisory  Authorities  (ESAs).  The  source  of  the  analysis  also 
included a targeted public consultation with stakeholders, which ran from 19 December 2019 
until 19 March 2020.  

The  quality  of  the  publicly  available  reports  and  research  can  be  considered  high  as  they 
represent  the  best  available  information  from  the  supervisory  authorities  (e.g.  reports  by 
ESRB,  ECB,  BCBS,  FSB,  G7,  IMF,  etc.)  and  leading  industry  research,  and  include 
quantitative  and  qualitative  input  from  identified  stakeholders  across  the  global  financial 
sector. 

The Commission has identified limitations on the available data on incident reporting and on 
disclosures on expenses/costs associated to cyber security in general by financial institutions 
and ICT TPPs. On the one hand, figures on incident reporting are not available as this data is 
not  compulsory  to  disclose  by  financial  institutions,  and  is  only  reported  to  financial 
supervisors in  a limited  number of subsectors. On the other hand, there is a  general  lack of 
evidence  on  expenses/costs  associated  to  cyber  security,  as  financial  institutions  and  ICT 
TPPs are reluctant to disclose and share such information, due to concerns that reporting on 
these topics could potentially harm them. 

56 

 
 
ANNEX 2 – OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CONCERNING DIGITAL 
OPERATIONAL RESILIENCE 

1.  ICT risk management 

Financial sector legislation 

A  short  comparison  below  shows  disparity  of  the  ICT  risk  coverage  across  the  financial 
sectors.97  This,  together  with  the  responses  to  the  public  consultation  and  a  comparison 
between the status quo and the preferred option of EU intervention detailed in Annex 4 (Table 
8 - Overview of main changes to the building blocks between the “do nothing” scenario and 
preferred  option),  support  the  conclusion  that  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance and EU added value of the current ICT risk provisions have been rather limited.  

In the banking services area, the applicable legislation (CRD IV) sets out internal governance 
rules  and  general  operational  risk  provisions  that  serve  implicitly  as  a  basis  for  ICT  risk 
management measures. Additionally, the EBA  Guidelines on  ICT risk management  security 
risks,98 the application of which starts on 30 June 2020, will set non-binding expectations in 
relation to the way credit institutions, investment firms and payment service providers should 
manage  their  internal  and  external  ICT  risks.  In  the  COVID-19  context,  the  Guidelines 
implicitly cover the need for cybersecurity within a financial institution’s information security 
measures  and  aim  to  ensure  a  consistent  and  robust  approach  across  the  single  market.  The 
payment  services  component,  through  its  dedicated  framework  (PSD2)  goes  beyond  the 
CRD IV baseline. It contains bespoke rules already at the authorisation stage99 (ICT security 
controls  and  mitigation  elements),  security-related  provisions  throughout  the  ongoing 
management  of  operational  and  security  risk  (implicitly  referring  to  ICT  risk),100  but 
developed further at the level of EBA guidelines101 to include specific provisions on the ICT 
incident  reporting  -  explained  later  in  section  2-  and  separate  rules  on  strong  customer 
authentication.102   

The  current  legislation  in  the  insurance  and  re-insurance  sector  comprises  rather  general 
provisions  on  governance  and  risk  management,  thus  capturing  ICT  risk  /  ICT  risk 
management in an implicit and partial way. Different elements - also relevant for the ICT risk 
management - (contingency plans, effective risk management systems, processes to identify, 
measure,  monitor,  manage,  report  risks,  risk  assessment,  etc.)  may  support  the  ICT  risk 
management  cycle  functions  in  the  absence  of  more  dedicated  provisions.  Certain 
requirements  on  governance  and  risk  management  have  been  developed  in  Level  2 

97 This comparison is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis (not every single requirement is mentioned).  
98 EBA Guidelines on the mitigation and management of information and communication technology (ICT) and security risks 
for banks in EU (EBA/GL/2019/04). They are addressed to the institutions in scope (credit institutions, investment firms and 
payment services providers) and will complement and be read in conjunction with other sets of guidance, in particular EBA 
guidelines  on  ICT  risk  assessment  under  the  Supervisory  Review  and  Evaluation  Process  (EBA/GL/2017/05)  (which  are 
addressed to the supervisors) and EBA guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02).  
99 This is not however a unique feature to PSD. Several other financial sectors contain some requirements  for information 
pertaining to the IT systems to be reported to supervisors at the stage of authorisation.   
100 Article 95 PSD. 
101 EBA Guidelines on security measures for operational and security risks of payments services under the revised Payment 
Services Directive.   
102  Articles  97-98  PSD  and  related  COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2018/389  of  27  November  2017 
supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical 
standards for strong customer authentication and common and secure open standards of communication.  

57 

 
                                                 
legislation103  with  or  without  specific  references  to  ICT  risk.  Furthermore,  as  the  current 
guidelines  on  governance  set  at  EU  level  have  insufficiently  addressed  ICT  risk  /  ICT 
security, Members States started defining national rules which, although comparable, do not 
always fully converge. To address the fragmentation and lack of more dedicated provisions, 
EIOPA  is  consulting  on  Guidelines  on  ICT  security  and  governance,104  When  it  comes  to 
institutions for  occupational  retirement  (IORPs),  the  applicable  legislation105  is  even  less 
specific  on  the  ICT  risk  /  ICT  security  components,  which  essentially  remain  (implicitly) 
subsumed to generally worded provisions on risk management and governance.  

The situation in the securities market is rather uneven. At the high end of the range, central 
securities depositories (CSDR) and central counterparts (EMIR) are subject to more specific 
rules on ICT risk. CSDR explicitly acknowledges that operational risk applies to deficiencies 
in  information  systems,  and  EMIR  sets  out  some  ICT  risk/ICT  security  tailored  provisions. 
Within its operational risk architecture, CSDR requires central securities depositories to have 
appropriate  IT  tools,  controls  and  procedures  ensuring  a  high  degree  of  security  and 
operational reliability, while a Commission delegated act further specifies some components 
in the ICT risk management cycle. By way of example, that delegated act106 requires central 
securities  depositories  to  have  comprehensive  frameworks  for  the  information  security  and 
the  management  of  risk  (including  incorporation  of  new  technological  developments), 
adapted policies and procedures to identify risks, to integrate the operational risk management 
system into the daily risk management process, to establish procedures to record, monitor and 
resolve operational  incidents,  to  identify potential  single points of failures and address  risks 
posed by all categories of market players. Separate requirements are devoted to the IT tools 
and  systems  (required  to  be  resilient,  possess  sufficient  capacity,  attain  service  level 
objectives, rely  on internationally  recognised technical  standards and be  subject  to  stringent 
IT  testing)  and  to  the  elements  of  the  information  security  framework.  The  post-incident 
stages are addressed through dedicated provisions on business continuity policy and disaster 
recovery,  while  certain  governance-related  elements  are  also  present  in  the  different  stages 
(i.e.  requirement  to  have  an  operational  risk  management  function;  the  explicit  role  of  the 
management  body  in  the  management  risk  framework/business  continuity  policy/associated 
recover  plan;  the  establishment  of  chief  risk  officer  and  chief  technology  officer  functions 
with direct access to the management body).  

In  a  relatively  comparable  manner  (even  though  less  detailed),  EMIR  echoes  for  central 
counterparties certain requirements for the IT systems, such as to adequately deal with the 
complexity,  variety  and  type  of  services,  to  ensure  a  high  degree  of  security,  integrity  and 
confidentiality  of  the  information.  A  set  of  articles  are  devoted  to  the  post-incident  stage. 
EMIR Delegated Regulation107 sets out more granular requirements for the risk management 
and  internal  control  mechanisms,  IT  systems,  record-keeping  process,  while  also  tackling 

103 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/35 of 10 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2009/138/EC 
of the European Parliament and  of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance 
(Solvency II).  
104  https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-consults-guidelines-information-and-communication-technology-security-and-
governance_en.  
105 Directive (EU) 2016/2341 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provisions. 
106 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/392 of 11 November 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 
909/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  regulatory  technical  standards  on  authorisation, 
supervisory and operational requirements for central securities depositories.  
107 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 153/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on requirements for 
central counterparties.  

58 

 
                                                 
components  of  business  continuity,  business  impact  analysis,  disaster  recovery,  crisis 
management and communication.  

Investment firms and trading venues stand somewhere in the middle of the range. Investment 
firms  are  covered  by  general  organisational  requirements  addressing  the  need  for  effective 
arrangements  for  information  processing  systems,  sound  security  mechanisms  to  guarantee 
the security and authentication of the means of transfer of information, minimise the risks of 
data  corruption  and  of  unauthorised  access  and  prevent  information  leakage  (MIFID).108 
These requirements are further specified in a Commission Delegated Regulation109 addressing 
procedures  and  systems  that  safeguard  the  security,  integrity  and  confidentiality  of  data,  as 
well as the business continuity and recovery needs.  

More  stringent  or  detailed  rules110  apply  to  investment  firms  performing  algorithmic 
trading,  in  particular  to  have  effective  systems  and  risk  controls  to  ensure  the  resilience  of 
trading systems, prevent erroneous orders or misuse of such trading systems; to have business 
continuity  arrangements  enabling  them  to  deal  with  the  failure  of  trading  systems  and  to 
undergo  full  testing  and  monitoring  of  such  systems.  In  the  same  vein,  trading  venues 
allowing or enabling algorithmic trading are subject to more thorough rules111 covering their 
systems’  resilience  and  capacity  (including  under  severe  market  stress),  calling  for  an 
appropriate testing of algorithms, for business  continuity arrangements to address disruptive 
incidents  (including  a  requirement  to  resume  trading  within  or  close  to  two  hours  from  the 
incident and ensuring that the maximum amount of data that may be lost from any IT service 
of the trading venue after an incident  is  close to zero), setting out  the minimum  content for 
business continuity plans and requiring a periodic review of such plans, in addition to security 
and limits to access provisions and certain governance related rules.  

At the lower end of the range, less comprehensive or less specific provisions apply to trade 
repositories,  data  reporting  service  providers,  credit  rating  agencies  and  asset  management 
companies. Trade repositories are subject to general operational reliability requirements that 
include secure and reliable systems with adequate capacity to handle the information received, 
general  requirements  to  implement  business  continuity  policies  and  disaster  recovery  plans, 
safeguarding data, recordkeeping policy and data availability mechanisms.112  

Obligations  for  data  reporting  service  providers  include  sound  security  mechanisms  (to 
guarantee  the  security  of  the  means  of  transfer  of  information,  minimise  the  risk  of  data 
corruption  and  unauthorised  access  and  prevent  leakage)  while  few  more  specific 

108 DIRECTIVE 2014/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 May 2014 on markets 
in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU.  
109 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment 
firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive.  
110 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/589 of 19 July 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  regulatory  technical  standards  specifying  the  organisational 
requirements of investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading.  
111  MIFID  and  COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2017/584  of  14  July  2016  supplementing  Directive 
2014/65/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  regulatory  technical  standards  specifying 
organisational requirements of trading venues.  
112  EMIR  and  COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  No  150/2013  of  19  December  2012  supplementing 
Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and 
trade repositories with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the application for registration as a 
trade repository  

59 

 
                                                 
requirements for electronic security derive from Level 2,113 including the set-up of procedures 
and  arrangements  to  protect  IT  systems  from  misuse  /  unauthorised  access,  minimise  risks 
against information systems, prevent unauthorised disclosure, and  to ensure the security and 
integrity of data.  

Credit rating agencies are required to have effective control and safeguard arrangements for 
the information processing systems and employ appropriate systems resources and procedures 
to ensure the regularity and continuity in the performance of credit rating activities. Level 2 
legislation114 requires record keeping and business continuity planning, with a separate article 
dedicated  to  the  information  processing  systems  (description  of  such  system  and  back-ups, 
description  of  control  and  safeguard  arrangements  for  information  processing  systems, 
identity of the senior manager responsible for these systems).  

In  the  area  of  collective  asset  management,  UCITS  and  AIFMD  contain  few  provisions 
specifically dedicated to ICT risk/ICT security. Some explicit provisions on effective control 
and  safeguard  arrangements  for  information  processing  systems  are  present  in  UCITS. 
UCITS’s  Implementing  Directive  115  and  AIFMD’s  Delegated  Regulation116  -  also  building 
on  more  general  provisions  for  risk  management  and  principles  such  as  due  skill,  care  and 
diligence  -  specify  a  set  of  requirements  relevant  to  the  ICT  risk  -  notably  references  to 
adequate  systems/procedures  to  safeguard  the  security,  integrity  and  confidentiality  of 
information; to  have adequate business continuity policy to ensure - in case of interruption - 
the preservation of essential data and functions and the maintenance of services or the timely 
recovery of data and  functions and timely resumption of services;  appropriate arrangements 
for suitable electronic systems to permit a timely and proper recording of portfolio transaction 
or subscription or redemption orders, as well as requiring a high level of security during the 
electronic  data  processing,  the  integrity  and  confidentiality  of  the  recorded  information.    In 
addition,  some  more  general  provisions  on  risk  management  policy,  measurement  and 
management of risks, or qualitative requirement also apply.  

Even less specific provisions apply to  statutory auditors and audit firms, the relevant EU 
legislation117  containing  general  provisions  on  internal  organisation  with  some  limited 
references  to  effective  control  and  safeguard  arrangements  for  information  processing 
systems,  as  well  as  the  use  of  appropriate  systems,  resources  and  procedures  to  ensure 
continuity and regularity.  

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence, EU-added value  

113 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/571 of 2 June 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the authorisation, organisational 
requirements and the publication of transactions for data reporting services providers.  
114 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 449/2012 of 21 March 2012 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 
1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on information for 
registration and certification of credit rating agencies.  
115 COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/43/EU of 1 July 2010 implementing Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council as regards organisational requirements, conflicts of interest, conduct of business, risk  management  and 
content of the agreement between a depositary and a management company.   
116  COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  No  231/2013  of  19  December  2012  supplementing  Directive 
2011/61/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  exemptions,  general  operating  conditions, 
depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision.  
117  Directive  2006/43/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  May  2006  on  statutory  audits  of  annual 
accounts  and  consolidated  accounts,  amending  Council  Directives  78/660/EEC  and  83/349/EEC  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 84/253/EEC.  

60 

 
                                                 
Effectiveness  analysis  considers  how  successful  EU  action  has  been  in  achieving  or 
progressing towards its objectives. None of the pieces of financial services legislation detailed 
above had at its objectives operational resilience and digitalisation, not even operational risk 
with  its  sub-component  ICT  risk.  EU  action  greatly  delivered  on  its  objectives  to  ensure 
financial  stability,  a  single  set  of  harmonised  prudential  rules  which  financial  institutions 
throughout  the  EU  must  respect.  Those  targets  have  largely  been  achieved.  Therefore,  an 
effectiveness  analysis  is  difficult  to  carry  out  when  factors  driving  progress  did  not  include 
preparing for, monitoring and dealing with operational incidents and disruptions.  

Efficiency focuses on the relationship between the resources used by an EU intervention and 
the  effects  and  changes  generated  by  intervention.  With  the  aim  to  reduce  inefficiencies  -
particularly unnecessary regulatory costs-, and simplify the intervention, the financial services 
legislation has conceptually moved from minimum harmonisation to maximum harmonisation 
and from regulating via directives to regulations. A collective analysis of administrative and 
regulatory  burdens  is  again  difficult  to  carry  out  in  the  context  of  EU  initiative  covering 
around 12 financial subsectors.  

Relevance  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  identified  and  the 
objectives of the EU intervention. Consideration must be given to whether the objectives of 
an  EU  intervention  correspond  to  wider  EU  policy  goals  and  priorities.  All  the  enumerated 
EU interventions helped to address needs and problems that were present in the aftermath of 
the 2008 financial crisis: banks were not  sufficiently  capitalised, financial  markets  were not 
sufficiently integrated, and harmonisation up until that point had been kept minimal. ICT risk 
was  not  considered  a  priority  then,  and  as  a  result  the  legal  landscape  for  the  different 
financial subsectors has evolved in an uncoordinated manner.  

The  evaluation  of  coherence  involves  looking  at  how  well  or  not  different  actions  work 
together. The rules on operational resilience -where available- are patchy, uncoordinated and 
do not  respond to  the increased  risk of operational  disruptions that financial  institutions, no 
matter the subsector they are active in, or their size and importance, face nowadays especially 
due to the interconnectedness of the financial sector as a whole. The approaches taken so far 
have  led  to  inefficiencies  and  a  lack  of  coordination  and  complementarity  to  address  ICT 
risks, where, in the absence of EU rules (or too basic EU requirements), international bodies, 
Member States or supervisors have filled in the gap.  

The EU-added value is the creation of financial stability and the deep level of integration of 
the  financial  sector  nowadays,  which  could  not  have  been  achieved  with  or  expected  from 
national actions by the Member States: the SSM, the ESAs, the Single Rulebook. However, 
when it comes to ICT risk management requirements on ICT risk, the lower and higher end of 
the spectrum show that some measures have had limited impact, while others have provided 
more EU harmonisation.  

The  responses  to  the  public  consultation  show  extended  support  to  enhance  the  ICT  risk 
management  framework  for  all  financial  institutions.  Most  respondents  insist  that  these 
common  standards  should  be  principle  and  risk  based  and  allow  for  a  proportionate 
application.  In  the  absence  of  more  EU  harmonisation,  many  financial  institutions  have 
voluntarily established and implemented security measures to manage and mitigate ICT risks, 
following national rules, EU soft rules (e.g. EBA guidelines) or global standards (e.g. ISO). 

The NIS Directive 

61 

 
Adding  to  the  intricacy  inside  the  financial  sector,  further  complexity  emerged  from  the 
interplay  with  a  horizontal  legal  framework  in  relation  to  the  security  of  network  and 
information, namely the NIS Directive. NIS is the first EU-wide legislation passed in the area 
of  cybersecurity.  It  is  a  directive  with  a  larger  remit,  applying  to  six  distinct  areas,  ranging 
from  energy  (electricity/oil/gas),  transport  (air,  rail,  water  and  road),  financial  services  (see 
below) to health (health care settings, including hospitals and private clinics), drinking water 
supply  and  distribution  and  ‘digital  infrastructures’.  In  finance,  only  banking  (credit 
institutions)  and  FMIs  areas  (operators  of  trading  venues  and  central  counterparties)  are 
covered.  

The  design  of  the  NIS  Directive  revolves  around  the  identification  of  operators  of  essential 
services  (OESs)  in  these  sectors  and  the  imposition  of  “state  of  the  art”  requirements  on 
security and incident notification. One problem derives from the focus on OESs. The process 
of identification of OESs relies on (general) criteria defined at EU level by the Directive, but 
at the same time a wide discretion is given to the Member States as regards the final outcome 
of  this  process.  In  practice,  although  the  three  financial  sectors  are  subject  to  the  NIS 
Directive,  not  all  financial  institutions  active  in  these  sectors  have  been  designated  as  OES 
and are thus now covered by the transposition of the NIS Directive into national frameworks. 
Moreover, this designation varies across the Union, leading to uneven implementation. This 
approach  is  suboptimal  for  the  needs  of  an  ecosystem  as  integrated  as  finance,  which 
prerequisites a common baseline for its digital operational resilience and is already subject to 
a  Single  Rulebook  and  supervisory  convergence.  Secondly,  the  current  NIS  Directive 
requirements on security and incident notification are general, while the financial sector needs 
more granularity to cover not only those aspects of operational resilience, but also aspects not 
explicitly covered by NIS (testing and third party dependencies). Thirdly, the NIS Directive 
provides for a lex specialis clause, prescribing that sector specific legislation that contains at 
least  equivalent  security  and  incident  notification  requirements  applies  instead  of  the  NIS 
Directive.  The  Commission  further  clarified  the  application  of  this  clause.118  However,  as 
shown above, since sector-specific legislation in finance has not always captured, properly or 
explicitly, ICT risks, some inadvertent overlaps and/or difficulties in the interpretation of this 
interplay  surfaced.  Moreover,  some  Member  States  have  gone  even  further  in  the 
implementation of the NIS Directive and enlarged the scope of national transposition laws to 
also cover other financial sectors (i.e. insurance).  

2.  Incident notification 

The  NIS  Directive  requires  major  incident  reporting  for  certain  banks,  trading  venues  and 
CCPs identified as OES, when the incident  has a significant impact on the continuity of the 
OES’s services: the process involves the designated NIS authority and notifications must be 
sent without undue delay.  

Requirements  in  financial  legislation  to  report  major  operational  incidents  to  financial 
supervisors  have  been  quite  limited:  PSD2  (with  its  subsequent  EBA  Guidelines  on  major 
incidents  reporting  under  PSD2)119  is  deemed  more  detailed  and  stringent  than  the  NIS 

118  Section  5  of  the  Communication.  For  instance  PSD2  is  lex  specialis  for  both  security  requirements  and  incident 
notification  and  MIFID  and  EMIR  are  lex  specialis  for  security  requirements,  thus  taking  precedence  over  the  relevant 
requirements of the NIS Directive.  
119  EBA  Guidelines  on  major 
https://eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/documents/10180/1914076/3902c3db-c86d-40b7-b875-
dd50eec87657/Guidelines%20on%20incident%20reporting%20under%20PSD2%20(EBA-GL-2017-10).pdf.  

incident  reporting  under  Directive  (EU)  2015/2366  (PSD2),  EBA/GL/2017/10, 

62 

 
                                                 
incident  reporting  and  thus  takes  precedence.  Major  incidents  experienced  by  payment 
service  providers  must  be  notified  to  the  national  competent  authorities,  EBA  and  ECB 
within  4  hours  from  the  moment  of  detection.  Operators  of  trading  venues,  as  well  as 
investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading and data reporting service providers are 
required by Level 2 provisions to promptly inform their competent authority of any successful 
breaches  in  their  physical  and  electronic  security  measures.  The  general  nature  of  the 
requirements applicable to trading venues means that they cannot be deemed lex specialis in 
relation  to  the  NIS  incident  reporting  obligations.  CSDs  are  subject  to  very  general 
obligations to inform the competent authority on operational incidents and to communicate a 
post-incident review to the competent authority. Banks must report incidents on the basis of 
NIS only if they have been identified as OES and if the incident has significant impact on the 
continuity  of  the  bank’s  services.120  The  other  financial  institutions  are  not  covered  by  any 
incident notification requirements.  

There are no EU rules on information sharing between financial institutions.  

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence, EU-added value 

An evaluation of the NIS Directive is not the purpose of this Annex, however its provisions 
overlap with  some of the incident  notification  rules in  the financial services acts  mentioned 
above, and that has led to double reporting and added complexity (differences in taxonomy, 
reporting  timeframes,  data  to  be  notified,  templates  or  relevant  thresholds  triggering  the 
reporting  of  an  incident).  Despite  the  lex  specialis  exemption,  banks  identified  as  OES  that 
also  hold  a  payment  service  provider  licence  are  expected  to  report  the  same  incident  to 
several authorities and as a consequence incur excessive compliance costs. This translates into 
a  limited  efficiency  and  coherence  of  the  EU  intervention.  Trading  venues  must  anyway 
report to the financial supervisor based on the MiFID requirements and to the NIS authority 
based on NIS, if identified at national level as OES.  

In  the  public  consultation,  the  big  majority  of  respondents  agree  that  a  comprehensive  and 
harmonised  EU-wide  system  of  ICT  incident  reporting  should  be  designed  for  all  financial 
entities: a uniform scheme, uniform criteria and via a single reporting path. 

3.  Testing 

Only four types of financial institutions are subject to some rules on testing. Requirements to 
test IT tools, systems and procedures can be found in relation to payment service providers 
and  CSDs.  CCPs  are  required  to  perform  stringent  testing,  simulating  stressed  conditions, 
before initial use, after making significant changes and after a major disruption has occurred. 
Penetration testing is mandated for investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading only. 

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence, EU-added value 

The  EU  intervention  has  had  very  limited  effectiveness  and  EU-added  value,  hence  the 
proliferation  of  national  and  supervisory  sponsored  testing  frameworks,  which,  because  of 
their  legal  nature,  could  –if  and  when  applied  in  different  Member  States-  lead  to 
inconsistencies and excessive compliance costs for financial institutions and supervisors alike.  

120 Banks must also report to the SSM if they are significant, but the SSM incident notification scheme is not a regulatory 
framework, and the scope of this annex is to describe and shortly evaluate EU legal provisions only.  

63 

 
                                                 
The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  face  issues  with  overlapping  or 
diverging testing obligations. Especially those financial institutions with locations in multiple 
Member States are often confronted with overlapping requirements for ICT tests by different 
authorities,  which  tie  up  considerable  resources.  Therefore,  these  respondents  believe  that 
harmonizing  the  requirements  for  ICT  tests,  reducing  compliance  complexity  by  integrating 
regulatory  guidance,  expectations  and  requirements  would  benefit  all  private  and  public 
market players.  

4.  Third party risk 

The  regulatory  framework  dealing  with  risks  stemming  from  institutions’  reliance  on  third 
parties is composed of on outsourcing and further sub-outsourcing rules that are again patchy: 
except  statutory  auditors  and  audit  firms,  all  financial  institutions  must  observe  either  all 
(MiFID  and  IORPS)  or  only  some  general  obligations  for  all  of  their  outsourcing 
arrangements:  

1)  the  management  bodies  and  senior  management  of  certain  financial  institutions 
(payment  service  providers,  banks,  investment  firms,  operators  of  trading 
venues,  CCPs,  CSDs,  insurance  undertakings,  data  reporting  service  providers 
and IORPS) remain responsible and accountable for the  activities and services they 
perform and provide even when they outsource them or parts thereof to TPPs. This is a 
key  principle  underpinning  the  existing  regulatory  framework  on  outsourcing, 
including  the  EBA  Outsourcing  Guidelines121  and  the  EBA  Guidelines  on  internal 
governance.122  

2)  investment  firms,  operators  of  trading  venues,  CSDs,  trade  repositories,  credit 

rating agencies and IORPs must outsource through a written contract; and  

3)  any  outsourcing  must  be  notified  to  the  competent  authority  (payment  service 
providers, trading venues, insurance undertakings, asset managers and IORPs).  

For  banks,  investment  firms,  payment  institutions  and  e-money  providers,  the  EBA 
Outsourcing Guideline foresee that a third party service provider should grant institutions and 
competent authorities complete access to premises to and unrestricted rights of inspection and 
auditing. The same goes for the EBA Recommendations on cloud outsourcing, whereby cloud 
service providers shall provide competent authorities full access to premises, and unrestricted 
rights  of  inspection.  Moreover,  the  EBA  Outsourcing  Guidelines  require  to  maintain  and 
update a register of all outsourcing arrangements with cloud service providers. Such a register 
will be available only starting December 2021 and will only cover outsourcing arrangements 
with  a subset of  ICT TPPs  -cloud  service providers-, have a limited coverage of the supply 
chain and no common templates for data reporting.  

Only  3  financial  services  acts  devote  special  attention  to  outsourcing  to  critical  service 
providers, especially the CSDR: CSDs and CCPs must identify critical service providers and 
manage  dependencies;  CSDs  and  data  reporting  service  providers  must  inform  competent 

121 https://eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/2551996/EBA+revised+Guidelines+on+outsourcing+arrangements.  
122 https://eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1972987/Final+Guidelines+on+Internal+Governance+%28EBA-GL-2017-

11%29.pdf.  

64 

 
                                                 
authorities  on  dependencies  with  critical  service  providers;  CSDs  must  also  have  robust 
arrangements  for  the  selection  and  substitution  of  IT  third  party  service  providers;  lastly, 
investment  firms  must  carry  out  due  diligence  when  outsourcing  to  TPPs  and  MIFID 
includes a specific provision on outsourcing to third party service providers located in a third 
country.  

The  EU  financial  services  regulatory  landscape  contains  no  provisions  on  the  oversight  of 
third  parties.  The  NIS  Directive  has  digital  service  providers  under  its  scope  (cloud  service 
providers being among them), that come under the supervision of the NIS authority for their 
security and incident reporting obligations under NIS. Therefore, only a limited subset of ICT 
TPPs  are  subject  to  a  limited  range  of  supervision  that,  besides,  is  carried  out  by  27  NIS 
authorities.  

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence, EU-added value  

The  existing  legal  provisions  on  outsourcing  have  had  an  EU-added  value:  bringing  in 
unregulated entities that operate cross-border and come from outside the financial sector and 
summiting them to an indirect supervision by financial supervisors needed a harmonised EU 
approach.  Such  harmonisation  could  not  have  been  expected  from  national  actions  by  the 
Member States. As a result of the relevance of the EU intervention, those financial subsectors 
where  there  are  no  such  legal  provisions  have  had  to  come  up  with  level  3  acts  (EBA 
guidelines)  to  fill  in  the  gap.  However,  the  difficulties  financial  institutions  face  when 
negotiating their written contracts with ICT TPPs are an indicator of poor efficiency.  

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  highlight  that  certain  EU  jurisdictions  have  more 
stringent  requirements  for outsourcing and require certain  data localization or pre-approvals 
from regulators, which may be in conflict with other laws, e.g. the GDPR and the current EU-
wide initiatives for the free flow of data. The lack of standardization in  controls,  processes, 
and  reporting  across  industry  results  in  unnecessary  complexity  and  frustration  for  both 
financial institutions and third parties. 

65 

 
Table 7 – Mapping of existing (qualitative) provisions on digital operational resilience in the EU financial services L1 and L2 legislation* 

* The different elements of the building blocks (column 2) are illustrative and non-comprehensive.   
Legend: red cells = provisions missing in the EU financial services legislation; green cells = provisions exist in the EU financial services legislation; L2 = level 2 legislation. 

66 

Payments (PSD2)Banks (CRD/CRR)Investment firms (MIFID)Trading Venues (MIFID)CCPs (EMIR)CSDs (CSDR)Trade Repositories (EMIR)Insurance (Solvency II)Asset Management (UCITS/AIFMD)CRAsData Reporting Service Providers (DRSPs)AuditIORPsart. 74(1)art. 16(4), (5)art. 47 (1)art. 26(1)L2 - art.48(1)Art 79 L2 - art. 40(1) - bothart. 15(2) - AAnnex I - Section A, (4)art. 28(3)art. 95(1)Art. 28 (risk committee) L2 - art. 70(1)L2 - art. 13(1) - AL2 - art. 23(1)L2 art.4 art. 41(3)L2 - art. 38(1) - Uart. 25(1)art. 95(1)L2 - art. 18 (AT)L2 - art. 9(3)L2 - art. 70(9), art. 75(5)art. 95(1), art. 97(3)L2 - chapter II,IV,Vart. 16(5)L2 - art. 21(2)art. 48(1) L2 - art. 23(1),(2)art. 26(6) and L2 art.9 art. 45(1)L2 - art. 75L2 - art. 79(1)L2 - art. 258(1)L2 - art. 57(2) - Aart. 64 (4), 65(5),  66(3) + L2 - art. 9(1)art. 85(2)art. 17 (1) and L2 - art. 14(1) -  (AT)L2 - art. 21(3)art. 48(1)art. 34(1)L2 - art. 17L2 - art. 76(1)art. 79(2)L2 - art. 258(3)L2 - art. 57(3) - AL2 - art. 11 (2)art. 24a 1(h)art. 21(5)art. 85(2)art. 47(1)part of BCP as referred to in art. 34 art. 41(4)art. 21(5)L2 - art. 22L2 - art. 78(4)art. 34(1)L2 - art. 19L2 - art. 76(1), art. 78art. 79(2)L2 - art. 15(2)L2 - art. 17(6)L2 - art. 78(2)art. 96(1)L2 - art. 23(3)L2 - art. 81(1)art. 45(6)L2 - art. 41(h)L2 - art. 71(4)art. 24a 1(i)art. 96(1)L2 - art. 18(3) (AT)L2 - art. 9(4)L2 - art. 3(1)partly relevant  by general provisions art. 49 art. 45(5)L2 - art. 75(6)L2 - art. 18(4) (AT)art. 19(6)art. 20(2)L2 - art. 4(1) (AT)L2 - art. 31(1)L2 - art. 6(1)art. 35(1)art. 30(1)art. 49(1)L2 - art. 6(4)art. 31(2)L2 - art. 31(3)L2 - art. 6(4)art. 30(2)L2 - art.16L2 - art. 25art. 31(5)art. 19(6)L2 - art. 6(5), (7)art. 35 approval by CA  required art. 49(3)art. 20(1) - Aart. 31(6)L2 - art. 18(3)L2 - art. 68(1), (2)L2 - art. 68(5)L2 - art. 6(6)L2 - art. 75(9)L2 - art. 31(2)L2 - art. 32Due diligence when outsourcing to third party service providersOutsourcing to third party service providers located in a third country TestingTesting of IT tools, systems and proceduresPenetration testingThird party riskOutsourcing - the entity remains fully responsibleOutsourcing is governed by a written agreementOutsourcing - report to CAs on the outsourcingIdentify critical service providers (CSPs) and manage dependenciesInform CAs on dependencies with CSPsRobust arrangements for the selection and substitution of IT third party service providersContingency plansCrisis management and communicationsDisaster recovery plan2h RTOIncident reportingReporting of operational incidents to CAsProcedures to record, monitor and resolve operational incidentsBreaches in physical and electronic security measuresBuilding blockMain elements of the buiding blockEU financial services Level 1 and Level 2 legislationICT risk managementArrangmenents (policies, procedures and systems) on risks to which the entity is exposed toOperational risk framework / policyRisk management policyInformation security framework/strategyAppropriate IT tools, reliable, resilient and secure systems (to ensure security / integrity / confidentiality)Business continuity policy 
 
ANNEX 3 – SYNOPIS REPORT ON STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS   

I.  Overview of consultations activities 

Throughout  the  preparation  of  this  proposal,  the  Commission  consulted  stakeholders  on 
several occasions and in several rounds, in particular by means of: 

i) 
ii) 

iii) 
iv) 

publication of an inception impact assessment (19 December 2019 - 16 January 2020) 
a  meeting  of  the  Expert  Group  on  Banking,  Payments  and  Insurance  (EGBPI)  (18  May 
2020) 
a dedicated workshop on digital operational resilience 
an open public consultation on a “Digital Operational Resilience Framework for financial 
services:  Making  the  EU  financial  sector more  secure” (19 December  2019  -  19  March 
2020) 

II. 

Stakeholder consultations 

1.  Feedback on the inception impact assessment on “Digital Operational Resilience 

Framework for financial services” 

The  Commission  received  two  responses  on  the  inception  impact  assessment,  where 
respondents addressed specific aspects related to their area of activity. 

2.  Expert Group on Banking, Payments and Insurance (EGBPI) 

The majority of the Member States expressed in the EGBPI meeting organized on the 18 May 
2020  high  support  for  strengthening  the  digital  operational  resilience  of  the  financial  sector 
through the actions envisaged along the four elements outlined by the Commission.  

Member  States  also  stressed  the  need  for  clear  articulation  of  the  new  rules  with  those  on 
operational  risk  (inside  the  Union’s  financial  services  legislative  acquis)  and  with  the 
horizontal rules on cybersecurity (NIS Directive). 

3.  Workshop on digital operational resilience 

The  planned  workshop  on  digital  operational  resilience  was  cancelled  due  to  the  current 
context  on  COVID-19.  Instead,  a  webinar  on  “Enabling  a  digital  operational  resilience 
framework  for  financial  services”  was  organised  on  19  May  2020  as  part  of  the  Digital 
Finance  Outreach  2020  (“DFO”)  series  of  events.  The  webinar  was  attended  by  more  than 
240 stakeholders. Overall, stakeholders welcomed the initiative and expressed broad support 
for  introducing  a  dedicated  framework  on  the  digital  operational  resilience  for  the  financial 
sector with actions focused on the four areas outlined in the public consultation document. 

4.  Summary of contributions to the public consultation on 'Digital operational resilience 

framework for financial services: Making the EU financial sector more secure' 

On 19 December 2019, the European Commission launched a public consultation on a digital 
operational  resilience  framework  in  the  European  Union.  The  consultation  closed  on  19 
March 2020. 

The  purpose  of  the  consultation  was  to  gather  stakeholders’  views  on  the  development  of  a 
potential  EU  cross-sectoral  digital  operational  resilience  framework  in  the  area  of  financial 
services. The consultation aimed at gathering all stakeholders' views in particular on: 

67 

 
  Strengthening the digital operational resilience of the financial sector in particular as 

regards the aspects related to ICT and security risk; 

  The main features of an enhanced legal framework built on several pillars; 
  The impacts of the potential policy options. 

The consultation document was structured in seven parts: 

1.  ICT and security requirements 
2.  ICT and security incident reporting requirements 
3.  Digital operational resilience testing 
4.  Addressing third party risk: oversight of third party providers (including outsourcing) 
5.  Other areas where EU action may be needed 
6.  Interaction with the NIS Directive 
7.  Potential impacts 

The  Commission  received  101  responses  in  total,  out  of  which  91  responses  via  the  Have 
Your Say portal, and another 10 confidential responses were submitted directly via email. The 
feedback  from  the  confidential  responses  was  aggregated  and  anonymised  to  a  level  that 
prevents identification of individual entities/authorities. 

1.  Overview of respondents and responses 

The  total  number  of  respondents  via  the  Have  Your  Say  portal,  and  its  corresponding 
breakdown per type of stakeholder and Member State, is as follows: 

Breakdown per type of stakeholder: 

Company/business
organisation
EU citizen

Business association

Public authority

Other

Non-governmental
organization (NGO)
Trade union

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Type of stakeholder

Breakdown per Member State/country: 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
25

20

15

10

5

0

Member State/country

2.  Summary of respondents’ feedback 

2.1. 

ICT risk management requirements 

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Spain

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Almost  all  respondents  agreed  that  all  financial  entities  should  have  in  place  an  ICT  risk 
management  framework  based  on  key  common  principles.  Most  insist  that  these  common 
standards  should  be  risk-based  and  allow  for  a  proportionate  application,  however  there  are 
some that suggest proportionality should be left out of the discussion given all players, small 
and  large,  are  equally  exposed  to  the  same  cyber  risks  and  smaller  ones  could  become  the 
weakest entry point for attackers.  

In  the  risk  management  cycle  (composed,  in  general,  by  several  stages  designed  to  identify 
cyber risk, detect, protect, respond, recover and learn and, finally, threat intelligence sharing 
with  other  piers),  most  respondents  faced  somewhat  more  significant  challenges  during  the 
detection and response phases. Information sharing with other financial actors ranks as one of 
the  most  problematic.  Outside  this  cycle,  some  respondents  pointed  to  third  party  risk,  e.g. 
coordinating  and  auditing  outsourced  service  supplies,  differing  cyber  risk  management 
frameworks and regulatory requirements, competition with Fintech/Big Tech companies that 
are  subject  to  less  or  no  requirements.  When  it  comes  to  the  senior  management’s 
involvement and support to manage ICT risk, most respondents rank it as quite high – Boards 
allocate staff, approve ICT strategies and track their implementation, and offer ICT business 
continuity and guidance.  

The  model  used  by  large  banks  and  insurance  firms  to  implement  ICT  risk  management  is 
usually  the  3  lines  of  defence,  composed  of  (i)  heads  of  unit  or  lines  of  business  (risk 
identification  and  assessment),  (ii)  risk  management  units  (development  of  the  risk 
management  framework)  with  a  Chief  Risk  Officer  and  (iii)  internal  audit  teams.  However, 
small  payment  service  providers  must  do  the  same  based  on  EBA  Guidelines  on  security 
measures for operational and security risks under PSD2.  

69 

 
 
In  terms  of  policies  or  measures  to  identify  and  detect  ICT  risks,  the  vast  majority  of 
respondents  (i)  establish  and  maintain  an  updated  mapping  of  business  functions,  roles  and 
supporting processes, (ii) keep an up-to-date registry/inventory of supporting ICT assets, (iii) 
classify business functions based on criticality, (iv) map all access rights/credentials and use a 
strict  role-based  access  policy  and  (v)  deploy  new  ICT  technologies  based  on  a  prior  risk 
assessment.  However,  in  some  instances  the  maturity  level  of  these  measures  could  be 
improved. 

A few large firms have faced major cyber-attacks with serious repercussions for their clients 
or  counterparties  (and  themselves),  details  of  which,  however,  remain  confidential.  Firms 
report  that,  on  a  daily  basis,  they  experience  cyber-attacks  without  serious  repercussions, 
distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and phishing. When it comes to specifying how 
many cyber-attacks firms experience on average every year, responses are very diverse: some 
large  firms  mention  between  10  and  20,  others  refer  to  as  many  as  80.000  (although  not 
significant  or  creating  disruptions),  and  payment  providers  mention  they  face  thousands  of 
attacks every day.   

Almost  all  respondents  regularly  update,  test  and  review  their  ICT  systems  and  tools,  and 
consider  them  appropriate  to  withstand  cyber-attacks  or  ICT  disruptions  and  to  assure  their 
operational  resilience.  Still,  some  pointed  that  legacy  ICT  systems  are  not  constantly 
monitored  and  tested  given  they  were  not  designed  with  security  in  mind,  that  penetration 
tests do not cover all critical functions, and that third party providers (TPPs) are not subject to 
the same requirements. Only a very limited number of respondents have not (yet) developed a 
cloud  strategy,  mostly  because  they  chose  to  develop  on-premise  cloud  technology  that  is 
specifically  deployed  for  core  business.  The  majority  outsources  to  the  public  cloud,  which 
they consider to be contributing to managing and mitigating ICT risks. More so, respondents 
use multiple cloud service providers (CSPs) based on a Board/senior management approved 
competence centre for cloud in each organisation.  

Many stakeholders report they have legacy ICT systems that they would need to reconsider, 
but  the  level  of  investments  needed  for  enhanced  ICT  security  requirements  would  be 
significant (only one large firm indicated a number in the range of €100 millions). However, 
in  the  event  of  a  cyber-attack  or  incident,  most  firms  do  not  find  legacy  systems  to  cause 
added difficulties; the most pressing concerns are the ICT environmental complexity and lack 
of skilled staff. Most respondents consider to have implemented high standards of encryption, 
while  some  respondents  stressed  that  legacy  systems  sometimes  do  not  allow  encryption 
solutions to meet the latest standards, though.   

A striking majority of respondents have a structured policy for ICT change management and 
regular  patching  and  a  detailed  backup  policy.  Also,  the  majority  has  established  and 
implemented  security  measures  to  manage  and  mitigate  ICT  risks  (e.g.  organisation  and 
governance, logical security, physical security, ICT operations security, security monitoring, 
information security reviews, assessment and testing, and/or information security training and 
awareness  measures).  Legal  clarity  and  simplification  would  be  most  needed  for  the 
mandatory  compliance  audit,  as  well  as  ICT  and  security  audit  of  the  outsourced  service 
providers. 

All  respondents  consider  that  they  have  established  and  implemented  security  measures  to 
manage  and  mitigate  ICT  and  security  risks.  Nevertheless,  a  number  of  them  indicated  that 
they plan further improvements and significant investment programs in the next years. Some 
follow national  or EU  rules (e.g. EBA  guidelines and Solvency  II) or  global  standards (e.g. 

70 

 
ISO).  Based  on  global  and  regional  regulatory  requirements  and  best  practices,  some 
respondents  have  developed  their  own  policies,  standards,  and  guidelines  covering 
information security and risk. Respondents mentioned the following fields where legal clarity, 
simplifications  or  improvements  would  be  needed:  (i)  the  mandatory  compliance  audit,  as 
well  as  ICT  and  security  audit  of  the  outsourced  service  providers,  (ii)  proportionality  for 
smaller  institutions,  and  (iii)  information  sharing  practices  among  institutions  and  among 
regulators. 

Given  that  most  respondents  from  the  financial  sector  have  not  yet  reported  major  ICT 
incidents, or a serious/major cyber-attack, they could not give a precise answer about the time 
needed to restore systems. Many mentioned 2 hours while others  gave the range between 0 
and 72 hours. Respondents reminded that the time needed was also  a function of criticality, 
scope  of  the  data,  ICT  systems  affected  and  the  type  of  attack.  A  financial  market 
infrastructure,  which  has  moved  to  cloud  solutions  for  its  enterprise  network,  reported  a 
drastically reduced number of incidents, especially concerning availability. A few respondents 
warned that imposing a sector critical standard for restoration time without consideration of 
all factors could be impractical and technically unfeasible. 

Most of the respondents did not report major hurdles when trying to ensure a quick restoration 
of  systems  and  maintaining  continuity  of  business  functions.  Nevertheless,  a  number  of 
respondents  agreed  that  the  lack  of  common  contingency,  response,  resumption/recovery 
plans  for  cyber  security  scenarios  is  an  issue  where  more  financial  actors  in  a  particular 
ecosystem are impacted. Respondents also mentioned the following difficulties: (i) isolating 
and  disabling  affected  information  systems,  (ii)  issues  with  multiple  vendors,  and  complex 
ICT  environment,  (iii)  communication  and  reporting  during  the  incidents,  informing  users 
about  the  situation,  (iv)  in  case  of  a  sizeable  attack  the  mobilization  of  a  large  amount  of 
skilled resources in a limited period of time to supplement the internal team, (v) the need to 
collect  relevant  data  for  further  investigation,  and  (vi)  identifying  whether  the  attacker  has 
managed to install other attack tools in other systems. 

In  the  opinion  of  most  business  respondents,  the  Recovery  Time  Objective  (RTO)  and 
Recovery  Point  Objective  (RPO)  depend  on  the  criticality  of  each  system,  the  underlying 
incident,  and  the  changing  requirements  of  every  business  process.  It  also  differ  across 
financial sectors like insurance, banking and asset management. Taking a one size fits all for 
approach  is  therefore  not  appropriate  or  even  impossible  and  can  disrupt  entrepreneurial 
freedom, in the opinion of respondents. Others nuanced that setting  clear expectation would 
be  an  advantage,  as  it  would  direct  the  market  to  a  particular  behaviour  and  improve 
stakeholders’  trust,  but  meeting  hard  deadlines  may  come  with  a  number  of  critical  steps 
being lost or ignored. Most business respondents stated that legislation is not necessary in this 
regard.  Some  business  respondents  preferred  determining  RTO  and  RPO  requirements  on  a 
risk base instead of including specific durations in legislation. One respondent recommended 
legislation  to  define  non-binding  RTO  and  RPO  durations  as  general  guidelines  and  only 
foresee requirements to uphold the functionality within specific contexts.  

Respondent  authorities  mostly  agreed  with  business  respondents  that  hard  RTO/RPO 
requirements  would  be  counterproductive  (e.g.  prevent  state-of-the-art  cyber  defence  and 
resilience  procedures).  One  respondent  authority  believed  that  guidance  to  the  regulated 
entities is needed to ensure resilience and recovery in the case of cyber incidents and ensure 
more streamlined supervision and on-site inspections. Others believed that for supervisors it 
would be better to gain access to detailed qualitative reports, which enable critical analysis on 

71 

 
a  much  deeper  level  of  significance  and  information.  It  was  also  proposed  that  firms  be 
required to specify RTOs and RPOs for every service they provide to their customers. 

Respondents used a number of activities or measures to incorporate lessons post-incidents and 
enhance the cyber security awareness within the organization. All respondents promote staff 
education on ICT and security risk through regular information sessions and/or trainings for 
employees. Respondents use online videos/e-learning, (regular) mandatory trainings, face-to-
face meetings, presentations, newsletters, cyber kiosks, phishing campaigns and invitation of 
staff to report suspicious behaviour. Almost all respondents reported that they try to identify 
root  causes,  conduct  ex  post  root-cause-analysis  of  cybersecurity  incidents  and  prevent  the 
occurrence of repeated incidents. The large majority also confirmed that they receive from the 
Board support for implementing effective cyber incident response and recovery improvement 
programs.  Respondents  also  organise  dedicated  trainings  for  the  Board  members  and  senior 
management, who also receive reports on major incidents. Some, nevertheless, indicated that 
it  can  be  difficult  to  gather  the  attention  of  Board  members  on  the  details  of  cyber  risk 
initiatives and issues given their technical nature and members’ busy agendas. 

In the opinion of some respondents, risk management activities continue to be in silos at the 
industry  level  hence  the  financial  sector  would  benefit  from  enhanced  information  sharing 
across sectors, between government and industry and among cybersecurity vendors, provided 
it  remains  voluntary.  It  was  also  suggested  that  the  public  sector  could  drive  a  common 
approach and culture to implementing/remediating ‘after action’ items from sector exercises, 
and  brokering  agreement  on  common  communications  protocol  and  taxonomy.  More 
regulatory engagement was also suggested in designing threat exercise scenarios. 

2.2. ICT incident reporting requirements 

Mostly  all  respondents  are  currently  subject  to  ICT  and  security  incident  reporting 
requirements that either stem from regulation (e.g. GDPR, eIDAS, national rules transposing 
PSD2,  NIS,  or  other  national  laws),  supervisory  expectations  (e.g.  SSM,  TARGET2)  or 
industry  best  practices.  CSPs  indicated  that,  while  they  are  not  directly  subject  to  incident 
reporting  derived  from  financial  regulation  (but  they  are  still  bound  by  GDPR  and  NIS 
obligations), contractual terms with financial entities oblige them to report incidents to satisfy 
the  requirements  imposed  on  their  customers.  One  respondent  believes  that  the  myriad  of 
different  requirements  creates  a  significant  compliance  burden  without  a  corresponding 
improvement in security.  

The big majority of respondents agree that a comprehensive and harmonised EU-wide system 
of ICT and security incident reporting should be designed for all financial entities: a uniform 
scheme,  uniform  criteria  and  via  a  single  reporting  path.  In  this  way,  the  report  can  be 
forwarded to all authorized competent authorities (which, however, should be kept small on a 
need-to-know basis, since reports usually contain sensitive data). Such centralisation, which is 
only opposed by respondent financial market infrastructures, will provide efficiency since it 
will  allow  organisations  facing  an  incident  to  focus  on  recovery  rather  than  on  multiple 
reporting procedures and channels. A few respondents point to a channel of information that 
should  go  both  ways:  regulators  should  also  share  anonymized  data  on  threats  and 
vulnerabilities relating to an event to aide wider collective defence as well as individual firms’ 
strength.  One  central  bank  considers  it  necessary  to  include  ICT  TTPs  outside  the  financial 
system  in  the  incident  reporting  scheme  to  facilitate  cross-sectoral  and  cross-border 
communication  and  cooperation  and  to  curb  adverse  implications  triggered  by  cyber 
incidents. 

72 

 
Almost  all  stakeholders  call  for  a  harmonised  taxonomy  of  reportable  incidents,  reporting 
templates  and  timeframes,  and  materiality  thresholds.  Some  respondents  call  for  a  single 
reporting  line  per  cross-border  banking  group.  One  central  bank  calls  for  a  2-phased 
harmonisation: the first phase would be focused on the harmonization of significant incidents 
with  cross-border  dimension,  and  the  second  phase  would  include  further  minor  incidents. 
Interestingly,  one  respondent  suggest  additional  harmonization  to  encompass  a  breakdown 
and identification of attacks outside and within the EEA. 

Regarding  the  level  of  detail,  respondents  find  it  necessary  to  include  indicators  of 
compromise,  the  scale  of  the  attack  (including  geographical  impact  and  number  of  users 
impacted, if any), type of incident (based on the ENISA Incident Classification Taxonomy), 
timing  of  the  incident,  steps  taken  to  rectify  it,  current  situation  in  incident  resolution, 
projected timeline for return to  normal  operations, impact  on critical  services and, possibly, 
lessons  learnt.  Some  recommend  a  phased  approach,  allowing  for  an  initial  incident 
notification  of  information  that  is  actually  reliably  known  or  feasibly  available  at  the  time, 
followed by a subsequent report based on the evidence found post-mortem. 

Most respondents consider that materiality thresholds for incidents should be established, and 
some suggest criteria such as risk to the security of supply or to the stability of the financial 
system,  or  impact  of  the  incident  combined  with  the  intention  behind  it  (if  targeted  and 
malicious). One central bank recommends leaving materiality to national discretion, other that 
all incidents should be reported to avoid blind spots – the more data, the more awareness. 

Few  respondents  consider  it  necessary  to  add  new  governance  elements  such  as  a  CISO 
around ICT and security incident reporting. Reporting to a single national authority would be 
desired. More than a third of respondents, and notably CSPs and payment service providers, 
support exploring the set-up of an EU central hub entrusted either with receiving the reports 
and  automatically  notifying  national  competent  authorities  or  with  centralising  reports 
forwarded  by  the  national  competent  authorities  to  fulfil  a  coordination  role.  Respondents 
suggested the central hub could be the ECB, EBA or ENISA. However, to be noted that most 
central banks do not welcome the idea of a central hub.  

The big majority believes EU legislation should establish a standing mechanism to exchange 
incident reports among national competent authorities, but warn that sensitive data should be 
kept confidential. Some point that an EU authority acting as a central hub would remove this 
issue. Many respondent competent authorities advise not to create parallel mechanisms in the 
NIS Directive and the financial supervisory framework.  

Lastly, respondents find there are many factors that hinder cross-border cooperation on ICT 
and  security  incidents,  and  they  point  to  differences  in  national  legislations  and  supervising 
practices,  the  fragmented  implementation  of  the  NIS  Directive  requirement  for  reporting, 
requirements  around  critical  infrastructure  in  local  jurisdictions,  business  competition,  data 
confidentiality,  data  privacy  (GDPR  obligations),  fear  of  reputation  damage  and  risk  of 
leakage of potentially compromising information. 

2.3. Digital operational resilience testing 

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  that  provide  financial  services  are  already 
required to carry out ICT or security testing. Respondent authorities such as central banks and 
supervisory authorities also mandatorily test their ICT resilience. Few respondents (e.g. CSPs) 
are  however  not  subject  to  such  requirements.  On  top  of  requirements,  the  overwhelming 

73 

 
majority  of  respondents,  businesses  and  authorities  carry  out  ICT  or  security  testing  on  a 
voluntary basis.  

The  majority  of  firms  face  issues  with  overlapping  or  diverging  testing  obligations. 
Companies  with  locations  in  multiple  legal  systems  are  often  confronted  with  overlapping 
requirements  for  ICT  and  security  tests  by  different  authorities,  which  tie  up  considerable 
resources.  Therefore,  these  respondents  believe  that  harmonizing  the  requirements  for  ICT 
and  security  tests,  reducing  compliance  complexity  by  integrating  regulatory  guidance, 
expectations and requirements would benefit both companies and authorities.  

The  majority  of  respondents  agree  that  financial  entities  should  be  required  to  perform  a 
baseline testing/assessment of their ICT systems and tools. They also found useful all of the 
proposed  methods  (e.g.  gap  analyses,  compliance  reviews,  vulnerability  scans,  physical 
security  reviews  and  source  code  reviews).  Respondents  also  suggest  business  continuity 
tests, disaster simulations, penetration-testing, standard app and network security assessments, 
DAST,  open  source  analysis,  bug  bounty  programs,  red  teaming,  and  vulnerability 
assessments. 

Respondents  propose  that  testing  should  be  proportionate,  based  on  the  risk  profile,  sector, 
size,  scale,  complexity  and  location.  Others  noted  that  the  choice  depends  on  the  criticality 
and the circumstances and if own systems or third-party systems are used. Some respondents 
recommend  a  uniform  testing  framework  with  quantitative  results  that  are  empirically 
analysable and comparable across Member States. Others warn that duplication of testing at 
EU level with national level should be avoided, but convergence of terminology and practices 
(based e.g. on ISO) would be welcome. Some respondents warn that regulatory-led tests (or 
unknown  third-party  testers)  can  expose  the  firm  to  undue  risk,  hence  proposed  using  own 
staff  and/or  firm-approved  vendors.  Finally,  flexible  testing,  which  can  adapt  to  the  rapidly 
evolving risks of the financial sector, was preferred. 

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  agreed  that  more  advanced  testing  should  be 
carried out for significant financial entities identified at EU level or designated by competent 
authorities.  They  supported  all  criteria  for 
identifying  significant  entities  such  as 
proportionality related factors (i.e. size, type, profile, business model), impact related factors 
(criticality of services provided), and financial stability concerns (systemic importance for the 
EU).  They  also  proposed  other  criteria  such  as  the  amount  of  personally  identifiable  and/or 
financial  data,  interdependencies  with  other  sectors,  and  historical  records  of  material 
cybersecurity  incidents.  Some  mentioned  that  even  small  entities  could  cause  significant 
effects (due to interconnection) depending on the criticality of their services to the financial 
system. Some respondents suggested not developing an additional and potentially overlapping 
list  of  ‘significant’  institutions  but  using  existing  lists  (e.g.  based  on  NIS,  SSM).  Finally, 
some respondents suggested that national authorities rather than EU level bodies should select 
significant institutions. 

The majority of respondents  preferred that more advanced testing  (e.g.  TLPT) not  cover  all 
functions  and  remain  not  compulsory.  Some  respondents  (both  businesses  and  authorities) 
argued that TLPT testing is not necessary for ensuring digital operation resilience; it is costly 
and  should  be  carried  out  only  for  significant  institutions.  The  majority  agreed  that  testing 
should  focus  on  live  production  systems  (while  avoiding  disruption  to  live  services)  and 
testers be certified based on recognised international standards. Respondents were more split 
on  whether  the  financial  entities  should  employ  their  own  (internal)  experts  that  are 
operationally  independent  in  respect  of  the  tested  functions.  Some  argued  that  mandating 

74 

 
internal  experts  to  carry  out  testing  would  be  impractical  and  burdensome  for  financial 
entities. Both businesses and public authorities supported that tests run outside the Union be 
recognised  as  equivalent  if  using  the  same  parameters  (and  thus  be  held  valid  for  EU 
regulatory  purposes).  The  majority  of  respondent  financial  service  providers  and  public 
authorities  supported  one  testing  framework  applicable  across  the  Union  and  that  ESAs  be 
directly  involved in  developing  a harmonised testing framework (e.g. by issuing  guidelines, 
ensuring coordination). Still, some argued that national competent authorities should oversee 
the  harmonised  testing  principles  and  requirements,  but  should  not  be  directly  involved  in 
running the tests.  

There  was  no  consensus  among  respondents  about  the  most  efficient  frequency  of  running 
more  advanced  testing.  While  many  supported  annual  testing,  about  the  same  number  of 
respondents proposed 2 or 3-year frequency. Many respondents believed that it is not possible 
or  advisable  to  determine  a  general  frequency  for  all.  Many  argued  that  the  frequency  of 
advanced  testing  should  be  determined  based  on  the  overall  situation  of  the  financial 
institution, its size, risks and existing or potential threats. Furthermore, different types of tests 
need  different  frequency.  They  warned  that  advanced  testing  is  expensive,  requires  large 
internal  and  external  resources  and takes months. One respondents  argued that in-house red 
team  tests  should  be  annual,  while  tests  which  involve  external  testers  and  regulatory 
oversight  should  take  place  once  every  three  years.  Others  advised  that  penetration  testing 
should occur annually or after significant changes, scanning needs should occur quarterly and 
critical functions may be tested more regularly. Finally, it was also mentioned that legislative 
requirements  for  testing  frequency  could  reduce  the  flexibility  of  authorities  and  firms  to 
prioritise cutting edge methods of monitoring risk and resilience in the future. 

Most  respondents  agreed  that  both  the  baseline  testing/assessment  tools  and  more  advanced 
testing  (e.g.  TLPT)  can  have  a  prudential  impact  for  financial  entities  when  they  make 
updates based on the results. Operational testing can act as a catalyst for more cyber resilience 
and  thus  contribute  to  overall  financial  stability  and  business  development.  One  respondent 
suggested  having  an  EU  recognized  certification  in  place  –  in  a  recognized  and  global 
framework  with  internal  team  certifications.  Others  advised  to  use  existing  guidance  and 
frameworks (e.g. IST, SANS, TIBER-EU) to build on. 

2.4. Addressing third party risk: oversight of TPPs (including outsourcing) 

In their responses, stakeholders pointed out they already use a number of ICT TPPs such as 
software  and  hardware  providers,  data  centre  hosting  and  CSPs,  internet/  network/ 
telecommunication  providers,  cybersecurity  protection  service  providers,  IT  operations, 
business  process  operations,  infrastructure  operations,  payment  transactions  processors, 
payment  gateways,  clearing  houses,  card  schemes,  customer  onboarding  service  providers, 
outsourced development and public services. 

The  provision  of  cloud  technology-enabled  financial  services  is  highly  dependent  on  data. 
According  to  one  respondent,  a  typical  European  financial  institution  accesses  over  1,000 
different  cloud  services,  many  unapproved  and  unlikely  to  be  monitored.  Employees  and 
partner  organisations  may  use  ICT  systems  that  are  not  monitored,  managed  and  secured. 
These  third  parties  could  increase  operational  risks  greatly;  however,  the  competent 
authorities’ oversight over some ICT (cloud) TPPs are inadequate. Some relevant ICT TPPs 
are not regulated within the EU. One respondent advised the EU legislation to make it clear 
that  organisations  are  responsible  for  all  aspects  and  behaviour  of  all  employees,  sub-
contractors and business partners, whatever ICT services may be in use. Another respondent 

75 

 
the 
that  an  effective  vulnerability  assessment  program  should 
highlighted 
identification and management of risks introduced by third party vendors and software. Good 
practices  could  include  automated  scanning  software  and  services  for  third  party  risk 
management,  because  assessment  questionnaires  do  not  sufficiently  provide  an  accurate 
picture of underlying risks or vulnerabilities  

include 

Most  respondents  have  experienced  difficulties  during  contractual  negotiations  with  ICT 
TPPs. They pointed out to several aspects as being difficult to negotiate, such as for instance: 
(i)  ICT  and  security  related  legal  obligations  imposed  by  the  national  or  EU  supervisory 
authority  (e.g. 2019 EBA Outsourcing Guidelines), (ii)  regular and mandatory  audit clauses 
/right to audit (especially with the larger global CSPs), (iii) geographical storage of data (e.g. 
GDPR  requirements),  (iv)  sub-contractor  approvals,  (v)  customer  and  its  external  auditors 
subcontracting information and control rights, (vi) information rights, (vii) exit strategies for 
SaaS  products,  (viii)  post-termination  assistance,  (ix)  resolution  requirements  under  BRRD 
directive,  (x)  business  continuity  clause,  (xi)  penalties  for  non-compliance  with  SLAs  and 
(xii)  transparency  on  processing  orders  to  subcontractors  and  outsourcing  chains  that  lead 
abroad, etc.  

CSPs offer their highly standardized scalable services to many different clients. Hence, they 
generally  do  not  cater  for  individual  specifics  of  industries.  One  respondent  added  that  the 
situation is even more difficult where the vendor is not itself a CSP, but subcontracts to a CSP 
as  the  intermediary  has  no  ability  to  alter  a  CSP’s  terms.  Nevertheless,  another  respondent 
the  bigger,  more  professional  TPPs  are  compliant  with 
reassured 
supervisory/regulatory  authorities  when  it  comes  to  contractual  negotiations.  Finally,  while 
larger institutions are able to secure certain concessions from the provider, smaller institutions 
may face challenges in securing similar outcomes. 

that,  usually, 

A CSP reported about historical difficulties in contract negotiations when requirements have 
not  considered  the  nature  of  cloud  services  (e.g.  the  specificity  of  the  multi-tenant 
environment).  However,  the  EBA  cloud  recommendations,  its  outsourcing  guidelines  and 
EIOPA’s outsourcing guidelines have significantly helped to address these difficulties as they 
recognise  and  account  for  the  specificities  of  cloud.  This  was  also  confirmed  by  a  public 
authority,  which  perceives  significant  developments  regarding  the  outsourcing  contracts  of 
the undertakings, thanks to the useful international and national guidelines.  

It was also highlighted that certain jurisdictions in Europe have more stringent requirements 
for outsourcing and require certain data localization or pre-approvals from regulators, which 
may be in conflict with other laws, e.g. the GDPR and the current EU-wide initiatives for the 
free  flow  of  data.  The  lack  of  standardization  in  controls,  processes,  and  reporting  across 
industry  results in  unnecessary  complexity and frustration for both  financial institutions and 
third  parties.  A  respondent  recommended  introducing  a  Standard  Certificate  Framework 
(substituting  detailed  auditing  of  the  legal  compliance),  which  would  be  commonly  and 
mutually  accepted  by  all  European  and  national  supervisory  authorities.  It  was  also  argued 
that  voluntary  minimum  Standard  Contractual  Clauses  would  establish  a  clear  guideline  for 
CSPs on the implementation of financial institutions requirements in their services and would 
reduce the burden to negotiate contracts for individual financial institutions. It was also raised 
that banks face challenges with the limited amount of CSPs, which in the long run might lead 
to the build-up of systemic risk/instability as the CSPs might not have the resources to help all 
their financial clients, if their cloud system breaks down at once.  

76 

 
Some  respondents  supported  the  implementation  of  Standard  Contractual  Clauses  for  cloud 
arrangements on a voluntary basis while others argued that they should be mandatory. It was 
also argued that due to the market power of the CSP, a standard contract should be drawn up 
at  European  level.  Nevertheless,  a  number  of  respondents  expressed  that  the  new 
EBA/EIOPA  outsourcing  guidelines  already  adequately  define  supervisory  requirements  for 
outsourcing and provide clarity. Any standard clauses should provide the necessary clarity or 
elaboration to give effect to the requirements set out in outsourcing guidelines and to ensure 
that  relevant  obligations  are  appropriately  reflected  in  outsourcing  arrangements.  In  the 
opinion  of  some  respondents  (both  businesses  and  authorities),  further  standardization  of 
contractual clauses should continue to be risk and principle based.  

SCCs  should  be limited to  regulatory  minimum  requirements  as  an  attachment  to  otherwise 
freely  negotiated  contracts,  including  service  content,  accompanied  by  clear  supervisory 
guidance  to  avoid  inconsistent  interpretations.  The  complexity  and  variation  across  both 
financial entities  and service providers (Software-as-a-Service  (SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service 
(PaaS),  Infrastructure-as-a-Service  (IaaS),  and  hybrid  cloud  environments)  makes  it  nearly 
impossible  to  provide  a  “one  size  fits  all”  contracting  solution.  Furthermore,  introducing 
SCCs should not create additional regulatory and operational complexity for firms (extensive 
renegotiation), reduce competition or increase in the costs.  

In  their  replies,  respondents  pointed  out  to  several  clauses  that  could  be  useful  for  the 
Commission’s  work  on  SCCs  for  cloud  arrangements  with  financial  sector  entities.  For 
instance,  their  suggestions  include  (i)  rights  to  audit  and  access  (timing,  scope,  auditor, 
publication),  (ii)  supplier  obligation  to  notify  and  provide  audit  reports,  (iii)  supervisory 
examinations, regulator relations to suppliers, use and risk management of subcontractors, (iv) 
(v)  data  portability  and  exit  strategies,  (vi)  data  location  and  transfer  (with  protection  or 
limitation  within  EU),  (vii),  sub-contractor  authorization,  (viii)  notification  in  case  of 
significant incidents, etc. 

CSPs also listed the requirements that do not lend themselves to standardization: description 
of the services, fees, security measures, certifications and audit reports, SLAs, and insurance. 
In  their  opinion,  the  following  aspects  can  be  part  of  standardisations:  regulator/customer 
information,  audit  and  access,  business  continuity  and  disaster  recovery,  significant 
developments,  chain  outsourcing.  They  warned,  however,  that  standard  contract  provisions 
should not be detailed or prescriptive. 

Business respondents also suggested that any such standard clauses should also be available 
for  TPPs  to  use  with  any  sub-processors,  and  should  be  harmonized  with  data  processing 
standard clauses under the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).  

An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  supported  the  introduction  of  an  oversight 
framework for ICT TPPs. The majority of respondents agreed that it should focus on critical 
ICT  TPPs  and  “criticality”  be  based  on  a  set  of  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  thresholds 
(e.g.  concentration,  number  of  customers,  size, 
interconnectedness,  substitutability, 
complexity,  etc.).  They  also  thought  that  proportionality  should  play  a  role  in  the 
identification of critical ICT TPPs. A variety of aspects such as data portability, exit strategies 
and  related  market  practices,  fair  contractual  practices,  environmental  performance,  etc. 
should be included in the oversight framework.  

Respondents mostly supported, but a number of them rejected, the idea that EU and national 
competent authorities responsible for the prudential or organisational supervision of financial 

77 

 
entities  carry  out  the  oversight.  In  some  opinions,  not  all  regulatory  authorities  today  have 
good  capabilities,  resources,  expertise  of  the  more  technical  aspects  of  ICT  services;  rather 
better  cooperation  with  industry  would  be  welcome.  Even  authorities  questioned  if 
supervision is capable to guarantee sound and secure ICT by licensing regime. 

Fewer  respondents  managed  to  form  an  opinion  on  whether  collaboration  mechanism  e.g. 
within colleges of supervisors should be established but most of them would support such a 
solution.  It  was  also  suggested  that  not  the  NCAs  but  a  European  organization  should  be 
responsible with sufficient mandate and authority to perform this task as mostly large, global 
service  providers  are  in  scope.  The  oversight  framework  and  body  should  be  cross-sectoral 
(insurers, banks, asset managers, market infrastructure operators all using the same providers 
and  range  of  products).  An  extension  of  the  remit  of  existing  authorities  such  as  ENISA  or 
BEREC, or a new focused Authority, was also proposed to be used.  

Respondents  also  highlighted  that  any  oversight  framework  should  be  coordinated  globally 
due to the interconnected nature of financial services and service providers. An EU-specific 
oversight framework for ICT providers may harm the competitiveness of European firms by 
potentially  limiting  the  range  of  third  parties  they  are  able  to  partner  or  outsource  certain 
functionalities to. 

Most respondents  (both  businesses and authorities) rejected the idea that  the oversight  tools 
should  be  limited  to  non-binding  tools  (e.g.  recommendations,  cross-border  cooperation  via 
joint inspections and exchanges of information, onsite reviews, etc.) and would rather support 
binding  tools  (such  as  sanctions  or  other  enforcement  actions).  Nevertheless,  a  number  of 
banks,  payment  service  providers  and  authorities  would  support  the  non-binding  tools  and 
rejected the idea of binding tools.  

CSPs  understand  regulators’  concerns,  however  they  think  that  introducing  direct  oversight 
over  TPPs  could  create  technical  and  regulatory  complexity  that  need  to  be  addressed 
beforehand.  They  proposed  to  consider  conducting  gap  analysis  of  the  existing  outsourcing 
frameworks  to  understand  how  they  could  be  strengthened,  and  introducing  (i)  harmonised 
regulatory guidance on assessment of criticality and importance of outsourcing to CSPs, (ii) 
consistent  cloud  audit  framework  and  considering  if  audits  should  be  performed  centrally, 
including  by  regulators  directly,  (iii)  joint  critical  incident  reporting  taxonomy  between  the 
financial  institutions  and  their  providers  based  on  common  principles,  templates  and 
thresholds. Direct oversight over TPPs raises a number of questions and issues in terms of e.g. 
scope,  technology  neutrality,  updating,  variety  of  customers  and  services,  proportionality, 
criticality,  competent  authority  and  its  expertise.  In  some  opinions,  the  existing  legislative 
initiatives  already  undertaken  and  underway  e.g.  NIS  Directive,  GDPR,  Electronic 
Communications  Code,  Cybersecurity  Act  are  sufficient.  They  warned  that  the  regulatory 
oversight landscape for ICT providers should not become too complex, unworkable, and serve 
as a market entry barrier for smaller providers.  

Both businesses and authorities rejected the listed possible solutions to address concentration 
risk  among  ICT  TPPs.  Most  of  them  did  not  support  either  diversification  strategies 
(mandatory  or  voluntary  rotation),  a  mandatory  multi-provider  approach  or  exposure  limits. 
Mandatory  rotation  may  cause  inconsistent  quality  and  significantly  increase  organizational 
overhead to deal with a new level of complexity. Furthermore, IT rotation has more transition 
costs  and  takes  much  longer  than  rotation  of  financial  auditors.  Mandatory  multi-provider 
approaches would significantly increase costs and add complexity to everyday management. 
Diversification and portability may not be achievable in case of a high degree of reliance on a 

78 

 
specific  ICT  third  party  provider  (e.g.  custom  solutions).  Limits  would  be  impossible  to 
implement in the real world. Binding methods can hinder the ability to continuously improve 
one's resilience and to adapt to new business models and technologies.  

CSPs believe limitations would restrict the ability of financial entities to select their provider 
based  on  risk  assessment  and  preferred  service  offerings.  They  warned  that  multi-cloud 
management  layers  can  present  challenges  to  operational  resilience,  significantly  increases 
operational complexity and risks, as well as costs. Rotation of CSPs (mandatory or voluntary) 
would be disproportionate and not feasible either technologically or commercially. Regulators 
and policymakers could facilitate development and sharing of best practices (on e.g. business 
continuity and disaster  recovery procedures, multi-cloud  and portability strategies) and later 
consolidate them in an operational resilience guidance. In the long run, financial institutions 
may  build  multi-cloud  strategies  and  re-architecting  for  a  multi-cloud  ecosystem,  but 
technology development is not there yet, and prescriptive legislation would not be practical. 

In  the  opinion  of  some  respondents,  concentration  risk  can  be  better  addressed  by  (i) 
regulating  CSPs’  conduct  and  enforcing  their  fair  competition  (foreign-based  providers  be 
held  accountable  in  the  EU)  (ii)  fostering  standardisation  and  interoperability  (e.g.  through 
open  interfaces,  data  formats  or  proven  migrations)  for  seamless  portability  of  data  and 
applications and multi-cloud approaches and/or exit strategies, (iii) allowing diversification of 
risks globally by removing data localisation rules whenever possible, (iv) lowering barriers to 
market entry and helping smaller providers to scale up, and (v) requiring excess capacity for 
at  least  one  critical  system  to  be  included  in  the  contract  for  critical  TPPs.  Given  the 
fragmented  nature  of  the  landscape,  regulatory  oversight  may  need  to  wait  until  cloud 
adoption and penetration of critical outsourcing becomes widespread. 

2.5. Other areas where EU action may be needed 

Information sharing 

The  majority  of  respondents  agreed  that  the  EU  should  have  a  role  in  supporting  and 
promoting the voluntary information sharing between financial institutions and that this could 
be  extended  to  other  industry  sectors.  Many  respondents  already  participate  in  cyber-threat 
information  sharing  platforms  such  as  the  FS-ISAC,  CIISI-EU,  FSISAC  EU,  WFE  GLEX, 
FSCCC  (in  UK),  TCO  Advisory  Group  Cyber  (in  NL),  etc.,  which,  in  their  opinion,  work 
well.  Most  respondents  argue  that  the  EU  can  further  support  such  information  sharing  by 
providing legal protections from liability and incentives for companies to participate. In this 
context,  both  businesses  and  authorities  considered  that  the  financial  sector  would  benefit 
from a stronger role of ENISA. 

Respondents  indicated  some  challenges  for  threat  intelligence  sharing  related  to  concerns 
around data confidentiality and data privacy, certain law enforcement restrictions that prevent 
cross-border  information  flows,  competition  law,  reputational  damage,  trust,  and  national 
security concerns related with financial stability or critical infrastructure protection.  

information  asymmetries  across 

The opinion of the majority of the respondents is that cross-border information exchange can 
help  reduce 
jurisdictions,  and  foster  coordination, 
communication  and  cooperation  among  authorities.  A  few  diverging  opinions  question  the 
added  value  of  such  platforms,  however,  arguing  that  the  existing  level  of  sharing  amongst 
financial institutions is very high.  

79 

 
 
Promotion of cyber insurance and other risk transfer schemes 

Most respondent businesses have cyber insurance or risk transfer policy, either in the form of 
a standalone cyber-risk insurance policy or bundled policies. Some reported that their policies 
cover liability arising from cyber risks and the delivery of products and services, while others 
are only covered for disasters or very major incidents.  

It was noted that insurers have a key role to play in increasing cyber resilience, not only by 
providing  risk  transfer  or  cyber  cover,  but  also  in  helping  their  clients  identify  vulnerable 
business functions and practices, preventing cyber risks and mitigating their impact when they 
materialise  (e.g.  forensic  IT  services  and  legal  support).  Nevertheless,  respondents  warned 
that  insurance  programs  are  in  no  means  expected  to  replace  existing  firm  capabilities  to 
respond and recover from cyber incidents.  

In the opinion of some respondents, a cyber insurance policy should cover cost to recover a 
serious  breach,  extortion,  electronic  compromise  and  social  engineering.  Cyber  insurance 
should be premised on the presence of effective risk management tools including a scanning 
and  vulnerability  management  program.  In  the  opinion  of  an  insurer,  standalone  cyber 
insurance should be offered on a first and third party basis as first party claims can become 
third  party  claims  very  quickly  and  vice  versa.  Some  business  respondents  agreed  that 
combination of both first and third party liabilities is the optimal coverage. 

Respondents agreed that (i) the lack of a common taxonomy on cyber incidents, (ii) the lack 
of  available  data  on  cyber  incidents,  (iii)  the  difficulties  in  estimating  pricing  or  risk 
exposures  and  (iv)  legal  uncertainties  around  the  contractual  terms  and  coverage  pose 
challenges  for  the  development  of  an  EU  cyber  insurance/risk  transfer  market.  However, 
respondents  were  split  on  whether  the  lack  of  awareness  on  the  importance  of  cyber/ICT 
security would be an issue. 

In the opinion of an authority, cyber insurance is still a rather underdeveloped area compared 
to  the  mainstream  insurance  products.  Lack  of  demand  is  related  to  a  low  awareness  of 
businesses and individuals about the cyber-attack risks and losses and the lack of knowledge 
about cyber risk management procedures. Lack of supply on the part of insurance companies 
come  from  the  fact  that  cyber  risk  is  difficult  to  quantify.  Business  respondents  agreed  that 
lack of data on cyber-incidents as well as the problems and complexity of estimating the cost 
of exposure to cyber-risk and ICT risk were the most important challenges. Others highlighted 
that the lack of data most importantly related to extreme cyber risks (tail risks) cause biggest 
difficulties in pricing and risk management.  

An insurer argued that the most important hurdles for cyber insurance becoming a mainstream 
product is that cyber risks are difficult to quantify and assess, largely due to a lack of good 
quality  data.  In  particular  the  following  factors  matter:  (i)  uncertainty  of  potential  future 
losses,  (ii)  highly  correlated  risks  due  to  widespread  use  of  certain  operating  systems, 
software  or  cloud  computing  services,  (iii)  multiple  (affirmative  and/or  non-affirmative) 
guarantees  may  be  triggered  in  different  lines  of  business,  (iv)  a  lack  of  available  data  on 
cyber incidents and losses, (v) increasingly intangible losses.  

It  was  also  noted  that,  given  the  evolving  nature  of  cyber  risk,  any  fixed  taxonomy  for 
reporting  could  quickly  become  meaningless.  Qualitative  risk  is  difficult  to  measure  for 
insurance firms as there are substantial variables to measure risk profile, and these can vary 

80 

 
substantially  between  entities.  The  qualification  of  cyber  incidents  resulting  from  warfare, 
state sponsored attacks and ransom demands is also an issue.  

Respondents  mostly  supported  that  the  EU  provides  support  to  develop  EU  or  national 
initiatives  to  promote  the  development  of  the  cyber  insurance/risk  transfer  market.  The  EU 
can  bring  together  providers  of  threat  information,  security  companies,  insurance  providers 
and support the development of different risk models on the basis of known threat information 
or  disclosed  incidents/damages.  An  insurer  suggested  that  the  EU  could  support  awareness 
raising,  by  supporting  the  development  and  provision  of  cybersecurity  training  programmes 
for  businesses.  It  was  also  proposed  to  have  an  elaborated  approach  to  the  prudential 
recognition of cyber insurance/risk transfer as a risk mitigation control. 

In some respondents’ opinion, the EU should provide statistics and a better documentation of 
attacks.  Industry initiatives, where  cyber  event  data is  pooled and exchanged via  a platform 
(similar  to  PERILS  for  natural  catastrophes  event  data)  should  be  stimulated,  which  would 
simplify  application  and  process  architectures  of  financial  organizations  and  allow  better 
pricing  and  risk  management  under  more  certain  conditions.  Cyber-incident  data  already 
gathered under the GDPR and the NIS Directive could also be used as a basis. 

In the opinion of an authority, as the first step, the EU could support the creation of a common 
taxonomy for cyber incidents to better set up data collection systems and also to understand 
the  collected  information.  Others  noted  that  taxonomy  for  cyber  incidents  has  already  been 
defined by the CRO Forum. Existing European initiatives (e.g.: ESRB’s European Systemic 
Cyber Group taxonomy and classifications on Systemic Cyber Risk) would also be useful for 
developing risk transfer and mitigation mechanisms. 

2.6. Interaction with the NIS Directive 

A  majority  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  NIS  Directive, 
mostly  by  virtue  of  being  designated  as  an  operator  of  an  essential  facility  (OES)  or  as  a 
digital  service  provider  (DSP),  or  as  an  authority  in  charge  of  identifying  NIS  entities.  As 
regards  the  former,  most  firms  fall  in  one  of  the  three  financial  sectors  within  the  scope  of 
NIS  (credit  institutions,  trading  venues  and  central  counterparties).  In  addition,  some  firms 
(notably in the area of insurance) are subject to NIS as a result of the scope being increased 
when transposed nationally.  

As  a  result  of  falling  under  the  scope  of  NIS,  they  become  subject  to  security  controls  and 
incident  reporting/notification  obligations.  However,  in  some  Member  States,  there  is  no 
additional reporting, as reporting to financial regulators is deemed equivalent. DSPs also flag 
being subject to additional requirements (e.g. technical and organisational measures).  

Some  respondents  stress  that  the  NIS  directive  has  established  a  common  baseline  and  a 
common  frame  for  ensuring  that  operators  of  essential  services  can  respond  to  attacks  and 
recover. They also stress the importance of the Computer Security Incident Response Teams 
(CSIRT), also as a base for international cooperation. Some respondents also stress that being 
within  the  NIS  universe  is  good  for  financial  firms,  as  they  can  learn  from  experiences  in 
other sectors.  

Respondents highlight that Member States have implemented the NIS directive unevenly and 
inconsistently.  Some  respondents  (mainly  companies)  argue  that  this  creates  significant 
problems  for  cross-border  firms  operating  across  the  internal  market.  Others,  while 
that  detailed 
acknowledging 

implementation,  nevertheless  stress 

issues  of  different 

81 

 
consistency  is  not  necessary  but  that  it  would  be  more  important  to  close  gaps  and  address 
weaknesses to improve Europe’s capacity to respond to large cyber-attacks.  

As regards the impact of NIS on firms and the sector as a whole, respondents paint a nuanced 
picture.  Some  respondents  from  the  private  sector  (companies,  associations),  argue  that  the 
impact  on  firms  has  been  limited,  given  pre-existing  requirements  in  financial  regulation 
either  stemming  from  national  or  European  legislation  that  were  largely  similar  or  more 
ambitious compared to NIS. While agreeing that the impact has overall been quite limited on 
firms  in  the  financial  sector,  many  respondents  nevertheless  stress  that  NIS  has  established 
additional requirements on top of financial regulatory ones related to audit obligations vis-à-
vis  National  Security  Authorities  (NSAs)  and  double  reporting  of  operational  and  security 
incidents  to  NSAs.  These  are  made  more  burdensome  by  differences  in  national 
implementation.  As  regards  the  impact  on  the  financial  sector,  some  respondents  stress  a 
positive impact in terms of increased monitoring and awareness of security incidents but also 
stress a negative impact in terms of reporting overlaps and associated high costs.  

Public  authorities  in  particular  stress  the  impact  in  terms  of  institutional  structure,  with  the 
creation  of  CSIRTs.  In  terms  of  substance,  many  respondents  stress  a  limited  impact  either 
because  of  the  lex  specialis  clause  or  because  pre-existing  national  rules  already  addressed 
operational and security risks to a similar extent. One respondent also stressed that the limited 
effect is also due to the limited scope of NIS in terms of financial sectors, arguing that it does 
not establish a comprehensive regime for the financial sector, largely overlaps with financial 
sector rules on ICT risks and accordingly imposes regulatory burdens without much effect.  

Many respondents further stress that they are subject to more specific requirements compared 
to  the ones  set  out  in  NIS. As regards respondents  from  the  private sector, a large majority 
stress that they are subject to more specific requirements in particular as regards reporting and 
ICT risks. These stem from national rules, EU rules and supervisory requirements. As regards 
EU rules, respondents mention in particular PSD 2 (e.g. Article 96), MiFID, CSDR, Solvency 
2,  as  well  as  more  generally  GDPR.  Public  authorities  also  stress  additional  organizational 
and  technical  requirements  stemming  from  national  laws  on  cyber  security;  additional  rules 
stemming  from  EU  financial  regulation  as  regards  IT  security  rules  and  requirements;  and 
supervisory requirements (e.g. European System of Central Banks).  

On potential issues stemming from NIS competent authorities being different from financial 
sector  competent  authorities,  some  private  sector  respondents  argue  that  it  is  not  a  major 
issue,  even  though  it  would  be  convenient  to  have  one  authority  in  charge  of  both.  Many 
respondents nevertheless stress that parallel and overlapping supervision increase compliance 
efforts. One respondent stress that the differences are significant, as the way the NIS directive 
has  been  transposed  is  often  been  modelled  on  preexisting  national  rules  that  are  cross-
sectoral,  national  interest  focused  and  outdated.  Some  public  authorities  stress  problems  in 
terms  of  information  sharing,  resulting  in  limited  central  knowledge  of  security  incidents. 
Others  nevertheless  stress  that  cooperation  between  authorities  is  regular  and  occurs  on  a 
“need-to-know” basis. 

As regards the way  firms  cooperate with  NIS authorities,  private sector respondents  paint a 
mixed picture. Some stress that ways to cooperate is set out in law, and hence not based on 
agreements,  whereas  others  stress  that  cooperation  is  more  informal.  One  respondent  also 
stress  that  as  a  result  of  the  NIS  Directive,  NIS  authorities  have  to  cover  many  more  firms 
without a matching increase in resources, and as a result, interactions stay at quite a generic 
level.  

82 

 
Public authorities provided answers to additional questions (52-56). As regards whether they 
receive  relevant  NIS  information  and  if  so  in  what  way,  respondents  had  different  views. 
Those  who  are  designated  as  NIS  authorities  naturally  received  information,  stressing  that 
they  shared it with  other authorities, if necessary with  financial supervisors, also  in light  of 
MoUs.  Those  who  are  not  NIS  authorities  stressed  that  they  did  not  receive  information 
directly,  instead  relying  on  e.g.  structured  cooperation  with  NIS  authorities,  or  voluntary 
exchange  of  information  (often  easier  to  orchestrate  at  national  level).  One  respondent 
stressed that it could  use preexisting information  stemming from  prudential  supervision and 
oversight to get an overview.  

Considering whether there is merit in national or EU financial supervisors being responsible 
for  supervising  ICT  and  security  risks,  respondents  expressed  different  views.  Some  argued 
that  NIS  has  already  been  transposed  that  way,  whereas  one  responded  argued  that  divided 
responsibilities  do  not  create  problems.  Another  respondent  stressed 
that  sharing 
responsibilities  and  establishing  comprehensive  cooperation  mechanisms  would  be  more 
useful. However, other respondents stressed the benefits of ensuring that financial supervisors 
are in charge,  given e.g. the special nature of the financial sector (already  acknowledged in 
NIS recitals) and the ensuing need to have a clear EU level financial supervisory regime. One 
respondent argued in favour of national competent authorities being in charge, while another 
respondent  also  stressed  the  need  to  clarify  responsibilities  between  National  Competent 
Authorities (NCAs) and National Central Banks (NCBs). Respondents in favour of financial 
supervisors  being  in  charge  nevertheless  acknowledged  the  need  to  cooperate  with  other 
authorities.  

As  regards  potential  difficulties  in  getting  access  to  information  reported  under  NIS,  most 
respondents  argued  that  they  did  not  encounter  major  difficulties.  One  stressed  that  access 
was not  the issue, but  rather inconsistent  and  uncoordinated incident reports  as well  as NIS 
limited  scope  in  terms  of  financial  sectors  and  firms.  Some  respondents  did  not  express  a 
view, arguing that experiences with NIS are so far limited, as it has just been/is about to be 
transposed. One respondent stressed that one problem was that the “need-to-know” basis for 
sharing information is not sufficiently defined.  

As regards potential difficulties of cross-border coordination, most respondents responded no. 
One  respondent  stressed  that  the  ECB  has  developed  a  framework  for  international 
cooperation  for  Significant  Institutions  as  part  of  its  incident  reporting  (however,  no  such 
thing for Less Significant Institutions). One respondent stressed that such issues may arise in 
the future, as more firms will share ICT in many Member States. One respondent also stressed 
that e.g. harmonised communication protocols could facilitate coordination.  

As regards experiences with applying the lex specialis clause, respondents expressed different 
views.  Some  argued  that  they  had  no  experience,  as  not  reflected  in  national  rules.  Some 
stressed  that  it  was  in  place  in  their  jurisdiction,  but  that  it  had  not  managed  to  avoid 
duplication/overlaps and inconsistencies notably as regards incident reporting. Others argued 
that it worked well, notably as regards PSD2 where cooperation was deemed fluent.   

2.7. Potential impacts 

A  majority  of  respondents  considered  that  the  initiative  would  contribute  to  the  overall 
financial  stability,  improve  understanding  of  firms'  vulnerabilities,  and  increase  consumer 
confidence  and  the  overall  operational  resilience  in  the  financial  sector.  The  society  as  a 
whole would benefit of increased trust in the financial services industry. 

83 

 
Most  respondents  stressed  that  the  future  framework  should  be  principle  based  and  risk 
oriented,  and  it  should  encourage  innovation  in  financial  services.  The  rules  should  be 
proportionate  to  the  nature/size/complexity  of  the  entities  in  the  financial  sector.  Many 
respondents  indicated  that  overly  detailed  requirements  would  have  a  negative  impact  on 
regulated  entities  (e.g.  increase  in  compliance  costs),  in  particular  for  smaller  and  medium 
sized entities.  

that  close  cooperation  among  competent  authorities,  better 
Respondents  considered 
information sharing among market participants regarding cyber threats, and more investment 
into effective cyber defences could bring positive impact on business development. They also 
highlighted that an effective incident reporting and management system will certainly have a 
positive impact on the wider economy.  

Several  respondents  highlighted  that  a  supervisory  framework  for  ICT  TPPs  is  expected  to 
deliver  significant  benefits  to  the  industry,  investors  and  EU  competitiveness  at  large,  and 
would substantially improve resilience of financial institutions, leading to the entire business 
environment being more secure/resilient. 

An overwhelming majority of respondents considered that streamlining the existing incident 
to  promote  effective 
reporting  requirements  and  establishing  specific  arrangements 
information  sharing  on  ICT  and  security  threats  among  financial  market  participants  would 
bring most benefits and value for their organisation and the financial sector. At the same time, 
a  majority  of  the  respondents  found  significant  benefits  in  establishing  specific  rules  that 
enable  a  better  oversight  of  certain  critical  ICT  third-party  providers  and  harmonising 
regulatory  requirements  on  ICT  and  security  based  on  international  standards  and  best 
practices.  Some  respondents  called  for  better  cooperation  among  national  supervisory 
authorities  and  an  improved  framework  for  cyber  resilience  that  also  leverages  on 
international cooperation, where possible. 

There were split views among respondents on the specific measures that would be completely 
new  for  them  and  would  require  a  gradual  approach  in  their  implementation.  While,  many 
respondents  stressed  that  these  measures  already  exist  in  their  practice  (although  in  some 
cases the depth might be different), some respondents identified threat led penetration testing 
as requiring a transition period of appropriate length. Similarly, one public authority indicated 
that the measures themselves are not new, but an increased activity would require additional 
resources.  Other  respondents  highlighted  that  specific  legislation  for  RTO  and  RPO, 
prescriptive requirements for TLPT and requirements to limit the concentration of ICT TPPs 
would also be problematic for entities to implement.  

A majority of respondents would expect their organisation to put most efforts in (re)training 
and hiring of cyber security experts, as well as in increasing workforce awareness. They also 
stressed  that  cyber  security  is  a  dynamic  process  and  there  are  always  developments  in  the 
threat landscape. Therefore, the baseline will always be in a state of evolution, to ensure the 
constant  update  of  tools  and  procedures  to  be  able  to  identify,  detect,  respond  and  recover 
from cyber security incidents.  

Some  respondents  also  expect  an  increase  in  management  attention  and  involvement.  Most 
organisations are continually increasing their IT budgets in areas of technology, educational 
training, board governance, etc. For instance, one financial market infrastructure pointed out 
that investment  linked  to the upgrading of their legacy systems,  for example, is  expected to 
turn around €100 million.  

84 

 
Many  respondents  also  highlighted  they  are  moving  more  services  to  cloud  based 
environments and this comes with increased spending on technical and audit controls. Many 
efforts will also probably be required in fulfilling the testing requirements (TLPT, source code 
review, etc.) and compliance documentation.  

In terms of the administrative formalities that are most burdensome, human-resource intensive 
and  cost  inefficient,  an  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  multiple 
incident  reporting  to  various  supervisory  authorities,  under  different  regulations  and 
legislations is a serious challenge for them. A big financial market infrastructure responding 
to  the  questionnaire,  estimates  that  the  administrative  cost  to  manage  divergent  regulatory 
requirements,  ranges  between  8  and  10%  of  their  cyber  security  budget.  Moreover, 
fragmentation in incident reporting leads to an additional administrative cost of around 2%. 

Similarly,  a  majority  of  respondents  stressed  that  the  costs  linked  to  the  multiplication  of 
TLPTs are also very problematic, as it is the compliance with the many regulations issues by 
several national and EU supervisory bodies. One respondent, estimated the cost of a security 
test in the range of €30 – 50.000 for non-financial firms, while for companies in the financial 
sector, the cost may range between €250 – 500.000 for one test. The cost of security testing 
very  much  depends  on  the  size  of  the  information  system  being  tested  and  the  particular 
method of testing. 

Respondents also stressed the amount of surveys, questionnaires, compliance assessments and 
information  requests  they  receive,  and  which  are  many  times  overlapping  significantly  and 
not leveraging the existing frameworks in the industry. The task of assessing and monitoring 
the effectiveness of the risk management frameworks of critical ICT TPPs (especially in the 
case  of  foreign  service  providers  which  are  subject  to  different  legislation)  for  operational 
resilience  risks  is  also  a  complex  process  that  regulated  entities  have  to  perform.  One 
respondent indicated that it would be helpful if these requirements or compliance assessments 
were focused under one single body. 

Finally, with regards to the costs incurred due to ICT incidents, respondents estimated them in 
terms of direct and indirect costs, however in their replies they preferred not to disclose any 
figures. 

85 

 
ANNEX 4 – DETAILED PROVISIONS UNDER THE RETAINED OPTION 

The table below describes the detailed provisions under the retained option, giving an indication on the possible core requirements it might entail 
in  practice  for  the  different  financial  subsectors.  It  also  provides  a  general  indication  of  the  status  quo  for  these  provisions  in  the  different 
financial subsectors. 

Table 8 – Overview of main changes to the building blocks between the baseline and preferred option 

Retained 
option 

Baseline 
requirements 

Status quo 

Under preferred option 

Comments on impact  

Minor changes foreseen for 
those subsectors in which 
specific requirements 
already exist.  

More substantial changes 
for those subsectors subject 
to general requirements. 

The EU financial services legislation covers the 
following aspects through specific provisions for 
the below subsectors. For those not mentioned in 
the list, provisions are either too general or 
inexistent. 

  Governance: payment service providers, 

investment firms, CCPs, CSDs, re(insurance) 
and asset managers. 

  Protect: all subsectors, except credit rating 

agencies. Credit institutions are covered under 
the NIS Directive. 

  Identify, detect, change management, learning 
and evolving: no subsector covered by specific 
measures. 

  Response: all subsectors. 
  Recovery:  CCPs, CSDs, trading venues and 

trade repositories. 

For more details, see Table 7 in Annex 2. 

ICT risk management 

The preferred option foresees the enactment of a comprehensive single 
framework for the digital resilience of the financial sector through the 
combination of different -yet related- elements. 
New risk-based principles covering the below aspects in those subsectors 
where currently inexistent or too general (see left column on status quo). 
The principle of proportionality would apply when calibrating these 
provisions for the different subsectors and types of financial institutions. 
  Governance: may include ICT risk management framework and ICT 
risk management strategy, defining roles and responsibilities for the 
Board of Directors and Senior Management for managing ICT risks, 
etc.  

  Identify: may include identifying critical functions, activities, products, 

and services and assess their respective ICT risks, etc. 

  Protect: may include tools, measures, controls to prevent, limit or 
contain the impact of a potential cyber event on critical functions, 
information assets and data, etc. 

  Detect: may include establishing capabilities to monitor and detect 
anomalous internal and external activities and events related to ICT 
risks, assess the magnitude of those events, etc. 

  ICT change management: may include establishing processes to ensure 

that all changes to ICT systems are assessed and implemented in a 
controlled manner, etc. 

  Response: may include processes and procedures to respond to an 
incident, mitigate its effects, business continuity, contingency 

86 

 
 
 
planning, etc. 

  Recovery: may include processes and procedures to repair and restore 
systems or assets affected by an incident and resume operations, etc. 

  Learning and evolving: may include training of staff, awareness 

campaigns, updating procedures and processes after incidents, etc. 

Incident reporting and information sharing 

Incident 
reporting 

The following financial subsectors are subject to 
requirements on ICT-related incidents notification 
under the EU financial services legislation: 
payment service providers, investment firms (only 
those performing algorithmic trading), trading 
venues and CSDs. 

The following horizontal legislations contain 
requirements to notify incidents: NIS Directive and 
it covers credit institutions, trading venues and 
CCPs. 

For more details, see Table 7 in Annex 2. 

The existing requirements in the EU financial services legislations and the 
NIS Directive would be streamlined. This will be grounded on two 
requirements: i) a comprehensive incident management process to monitor 
and log ICT incidents and ii) a mandatory reporting obligation to financial 
supervisors of all major ICT incidents. To enable a homogenous reporting 
on content and format across financial sectors, the European Supervisory 
Authorities would further specify the classification of ICT incidents and set 
uniform criteria and materiality thresholds for major ICT incidents. The 
initiative would require financial supervisors to pass on incident reports to 
the respective NIS authorities and ENISA, where relevant. 
In addition, new reporting obligations on ICT-related incidents in the 
following financial subsectors would be introduced in the EU financial 
services legislations: credit institutions, investment firms (except 
algorithmic trading), trading venues, CCPs, CSDs, trade repositories, 
(re)insurance, asset managers, credit rating agencies, statutory auditors. The 
principle of proportionality would apply when calibrating these provisions 
for the different subsectors and types of financial institutions. 

Sharing of 
Threat 
Intelligence 

No requirements exist in the EU financial services 
legislation. 

The initiative will envisage introducing provisions to support/ encourage/ 
promote the exchange of threat intelligence among financial institutions. 

Advanced 
testing 

Under the EU financial services legislation, only 
investment firms performing algorithmic trading 
are currently subject to performing more advanced 
testing. 

Digital operational resilience testing 

More advanced testing (e.g. threat led penetration testing) would be 
extended to all financial subsectors and would apply only to financially 
significant and digitally most advanced financial institutions. The 
identification would be carried out using criteria laid down in the new 
regulation. The principle of proportionality would apply when calibrating 
these provisions for the different subsectors and types of financial 
institutions. 

87 

Significant administrative 
burden reduction for those 
subsectors where 
overlapping requirements 
exist.  

Changes foreseen for those 
sectors where new 
requirements would be 
introduced.  

Given its voluntary nature, 
changes might be expected 
for those financial 
institutions that would 
engage in such initiatives. 

Changes might be expected 
for some of financial 
subsectors. 

 
 
 
 
Outsourcing to 
TPPs (indirect 
supervision) 

The EU financial services legislation contains 
provisions on outsourcing to third party providers. 
The rules on outsourcing are diverse in scope and 
specificity. The following subsectors are covered 
by specific rules. For those not mentioned in the 
list, provisions are either too general or inexistent: 
  Credit institutions, trade repositories, asset 

managers, statutory auditors. 

The NIS Directive doesn’t cover outsourcing to 
third party providers. 

Direct 
oversight of 
ICT TPPs 

Under the NIS Directive, only cloud service 
providers (a sub-set of ICT TPPs) are currently 
subject to limited supervision of security 
requirements and incident reporting by the NIS 
Authority.  
Financial supervisors have no oversight over the 
activities of ICT TPPs. 

New rules on the mutual acceptance of testing results performed in different 
Member States would be introduced. 

ICT third party risk 

The existing requirements in the EU financial services legislations on 
arrangements with, including outsourcing to, ICT third party providers 
would be strengthened and could include provisions on e.g. rights to access, 
audit and obtain information from TPPs, exit strategies, notification by 
TPPs of the sub-outsourced services, etc.  
All arrangements (including outsourcing) concluded by financial 
institutions with ICT TPPs would contain a minimum of key contractual 
requirements deemed essential for a financial institution’s ability to monitor 
ICT risks emerging at the third party. Specific rights and obligations, 
derived from the ESAs Guidelines on outsourcing and related supervisory 
practices, would apply at different stages of the contractual relationship 
(e.g. performance, termination and post-service assistance). 

ICT TPPs would become subject to a direct oversight by financial 
authorities. This will build upon decades of experience with oversight 
applied by financial supervisors to other actors and in different contexts, but 
innovates through an integrated EU dimension. An enhanced oversight of 
critical ICT TPPs will leverage on existing structures and authorities (ESAs 
and national supervisors, Joint Committee, colleges) with a lead EU 
overseer implementing a set of rights directly upon critical ICT TPPs. 
These would consist in e.g. access to information, audit and inspection 
rights, approvals or vetoes of certain operations - especially where a critical 
ICT TPP has no physical presence in the Union or when it envisages sub-
outsourcing or where concentration of arrangements touching critical 
functions may trigger financial stability concerns. 

Changes might be expected 
for some of the financial 
subsectors and ICT TPPs. 

Changes might be expected 
for both ICT TPPS and 
prudential supervisors. 

88 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5 – WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW? 

1.  Practical implications of the initiative 

Under  the  retained  option  (option  2:  a  digital  operational  resilience  act  for  the  financial 
sector) a comprehensive framework addressing in a consistent manner at EU level the digital 
resilience needs of all regulated financial institutions would be established.  

This EU framework would aim to strengthen the qualitative dimension of the operational risk 
framework  by  building  a  proper  digital  operational  resilience  core  requirements  (the  “core 
requirements”). Under this option, the core requirements in the initiative would apply across 
the  financial  sector.  When  defining  the  core  requirements  across  the  four  main  areas,  the 
principle  of  proportionality  would  apply  both  across  the  subsectors,  but  also  within  each 
subsector, taking into account, where relevant, specific needs arising for specific categories of 
financial institutions, as well as their business models, size, risk profile, systemic importance, 
etc.  

Financial  subsectors  under  the  scope  of  the  NIS  Directive  would  remain  subject  to  the  NIS 
Directive  and  its  lex  specialis  exemption  would  continue  to  apply  to  the  ICT  security  and 
incident  notification requirements set  out  in  the current  version of the Directive, and to  any 
other  substantive  requirements  that  may  emerge  with  its  revision.  They  would  therefore 
remain associated with the NIS ‘ecosystem provisions’ (national strategy, Cooperation Group, 
CSIRTs network, international cooperation and standardization) through a specific article in 
the  new  act  and  a  corresponding  article  in  the  revision  of  the  NIS  Directive  distinguishing 
between  substantive  and  non-substantive  provisions  in  NIS,  what  is  applicable  to  financial 
institutions  and  clarifying  the  extent  of  the  lex  specialis.  The  association  would  materialise 
via, for example, the exchange of information and cooperation between financial supervisors 
and  the  NIS  designated  authorities  or  the  participation  of  financial  supervisors  in  the  NIS 
Cooperation Group. 

This option is broadly supported by the stakeholders responding to the public consultation (for 
more  details  see  Annex  3).  In  particular,  almost  all  respondents  agreed  that  all  financial 
entities should have in  place  an  ICT  risk  management framework based on key  common 
principles, with most of the respondents insisting that these common standards should be risk-
based and allow for a proportionate application. In terms of basic and advanced  testing, the 
majority of respondents agree that financial entities should be required to perform a baseline 
testing/assessment  of  their  ICT  systems  and  tools.  Similarly,  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
respondents agreed that more advanced testing should be carried out for significant financial 
entities  identified  at  EU  level  or  designated  by  competent  authorities.  The  majority  of 
respondents to the public consultation agree that the EU should play a role in supporting and 
promoting  the  voluntary  information  sharing  as  it  would  help  reduce  information 
asymmetries  across  jurisdictions,  and  foster  coordination,  communication  and  cooperation 
among financial institutions and competent authorities. Finally, an overwhelming majority of 
respondents to the public consultation supported the introduction of an oversight framework 
for critical ICT TPPs.  

2.  Summary of cost and benefits 

Benefits and costs of option 2 for each category of stakeholders have been summarized in the 
below table. Main benefits refer to financial institutions who would benefit from a coherent 
regulatory framework on digital operational resilience, increased indirect oversight over ICT 

89 

 
TPPS, cost savings due to streamlined reporting and reduced administrative burden on testing. 
The provision of financial  services by more resilient financial institution would also  lead to 
increased  benefits  for  consumers  and  investors.  On  the  supervisory  side,  prudential  benefits 
would  derive  from  an  increased  overview  on  the  frequency  and  impact  of  ICT-related 
incidents  and  monitoring  concentration  risks  from  ICT  TPPs.  Costs  would  increase  for  all 
stakeholders, but to a lesser extent for consumers (e.g. if some of the cost borne by financial 
institutions would be passed on to their customers). 

Table 9 - Impacts on different stakeholders of Option 2 

Consumers/investors  Financial institutions 

ICT TPPs 

Supervisors 

Benefits 

Costs 

↑↑↑ 

↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑ 

↑↑↑ 

↑↑ 

Tables  10  and  11  below,  present  the  typical  costs  and  benefits  deriving  from  the  specific 
actions to be undertaken for each of the main policy areas in order to implement option 2. In 
several instances, it is not possible to quantify impact at a high level of detail. In addition, for 
some  policy  areas  in  the  baseline,  current  costs  are  not  available/disclosed  due  to  the 
sensitivity  of  the  data.  On  the  benefits  side,  most  of  them  are  of  a  qualitative  nature. 
Therefore, the exercise in the following tables will accordingly follow a descriptive approach 
based on the benefits and costs described in detail in section 4.3. 

Table 10 – Overview of benefits: preferred option 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Financial institution 

Strengthen and 
harmonise requirements 
on ICT risk management 
across the EU financial 
sector 

Direct benefits 

1.  Reduce  the  risk  of  financial  sector  stability  and 
integrity and effectively mitigate the negative impacts of 
ICT-related incidents.  

In order to estimate the scale of these potential negative 
impacts, industry estimates the cost of cyber incidents to 
range  from  USD  45  billion  to  USD  654  billion  for  the 
global economy in 2018. Assuming that about one fifth 
of incidents occur in the financial sector (see section 1.2 
above),  and  the  EU  economy  accounts  for  around  21% 
of  the  global  economy,  this  would  imply  costs  in  the 
range  of  USD  2  billion  to  USD  27  billion  for  the  EU. 
While a potential reduction of the  negative impacts can 
be bigger, if we assume a conservative reduction of 10% 
of  these  risks,  it  would  lead  to  benefits  in  the  range  of 
$200 million to $2,7 billion for the EU financial system. 

Enhancing and 
streamlining incident 
reporting 

1. Savings from eliminating the costs of overlapping and 
duplicative  reporting.  To  illustrate  the  scale  for  the 
banking sector, we could estimate potential savings only 
for the top 6 out of the more than 6000 EU banks to be 
in the range of up to 29 to 68 million EUR.  

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Financial institutions 

Supervisors 

90 

 
 
 
 
2.  Prudential  benefits  for  financial  supervisors  in  the 
form  of  enhanced  access  to  information  on  ICT-related 
incidents  (due  to  enhancing  incident  reporting  to  cover 
those subsectors currently not subject to such rules).  

Promote/support 
voluntary information 
sharing 

1.  Increased  capacity  for  financial 
to 
leverage  their  collective  knowledge  and  experience  to 
address common threats and vulnerabilities. 

institutions 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Financial institutions 

Mutual acceptance of 
testing results across the 
EU financial sector 

Strengthen the 
outsourcing requirements 
for ICT TPPs (indirect 
oversight) 

Enable tools for financial 
supervisors to monitor 
the activities of ICT 
TPPs (direct oversight) 

1. Cost savings from mutual acceptance of testing results 
performed in different jurisdictions.  

The costs could be estimated in the range of 250.000 to 
1 million EUR per cross-border financial institution. To 
illustrate  the  scale  of  savings  in  the  banking  sector 
where,  according  to  ECB  and  SRB  data,  around  44 
banking  groups  are  undertaking  cross-border  activities 
in  the  EU,  the  total  expected  benefits  could  range 
between 11 and 88 million EUR. 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Financial institutions 

Supervisors 

1. Increased ability for financial institutions to enforce 
the contractual rights in order to ensure TPPs’ 
compliance with the regulatory framework. 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Financial institutions 

1. Enhanced macro-prudential scrutiny of systemic risks 
resulting from the provision of service by ICT TPPs to 
financial institutions. 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

Supervisors 

Indirect benefits 

Strengthen and 
harmonise requirements 
on ICT risk management 
across the EU financial 
sector 

1. Secured and resilient operating environment for all 
financial market participants. 

Stakeholders who benefit: 

2. Strengthened consumer and investor protection due to 
more resilient financial institutions. 

Financial institutions 

Consumers/investors 

91 

 
 
 
Table 11 - Overview of costs: preferred option 

Consumers/Investors 

Financial institutions 

ICT TPPs 

Competent authorities 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

NA 

NA 

On average, costs are 
estimated at 10% of 
the IT budget on 
cybersecurity. In terms 
of revenues, this 
accounts on average to 
about 0.3% of 
revenues. 

NA 

Adjust 
supervision to 
new rules. 
Costs associated 
to ICT 
supervision are 
between 5% and 
10% of the total 
IT supervision 
staff. 

Higher adjustment costs. 
Respondents to the 
public consultation 
highlighted that they are 
anyway planning 
improvements and 
significant investment 
programs in their ICT 
systems for the years to 
come. For instance, the 
top 4 EU banks have 
announced a total annual 
spending of around 1.1 
billion EUR over the 
next years. 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Direct 
costs 

Strengthen and 
harmonise 
requirements on ICT 
risk management 
across the EU 
financial sector 

Indirect 
costs 

NA 

Some of the 
cost for 
upgrading 
financial 
institutions’ 
ICT systems 
could be 
passed on to 
their 
customers. 

92 

 
 
 
Enhancing and 
streamlining incident 
reporting 

NA 

NA 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Promote/support 
voluntary 
information sharing 

Mutual acceptance of 
testing results across 
the EU financial 
sector 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Recurring costs for 
managing incidents 
and reporting (e.g. 
classification of 
incidents, regulatory 
scouting, updating 
templates, etc.) are 
estimated in the range 
of €18 to 36 million. 

It is estimated that on 
average, the costs for a 
big European bank for 
developing an internal 
template for incident 
reporting would amount 
to approx. €9.000. The 
total additional one-off 
costs for financial 
institutions is estimated 
in the range of €9 and 
€18 million. 

NA 

NA 

Administrative costs for 
joining (i.e. adjustments 
to IT systems, legal 
advice) 

Annual costs may 
range between 1.000 
EUR and 50.000 EUR, 
plus 1 to 3 FTEs. 

NA 

NA 

Marginal 
increase in 
FTEs due to 
additional rules 
on incident 
reporting 

IT costs for the 
collection and 
management of 
ICT-related  
incident 
reported by 
financial 
institutions 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Adjust 
supervision to 
new rules 

Marginal 
increase in 
FTEs for 
overseeing 
TLPTs and 
making sure it 
meets the 
requirements of 
the framework 

Costs of TLPTs are in 
the range of 250-
500.00 EUR 
depending on the 
scope, and estimated to 
a range between 0.1% 
and 0.3% of the total 
ICT budget. Total 
costs for testing the 
100 financial 
institutions would be 

93 

 
 
 
Strengthen the 
outsourcing 
requirements for ICT 
TPPs (indirect 
oversight) 

Enable tools for 
financial supervisors 
to monitor the 
activities of ICT TPPs 
(direct oversight) 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Adjust to new rules on 
outsourcing 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

in the range of €25 to 
€50 million. 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Adjust to 
new rules 
on 
outsourcing 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Higher 
enforcement 
costs 

Adjust to 
new rules of 
direct 
oversight 

It is 
estimated 
that on 
average, the 
staffing 
costs for an 
ICT TPPs 
that would 
be subject to 
a direct 
oversight by 
financial 
supervisors 
would be in 
the range of 
2 to 6 FTEs. 

Costs for 
supervisory 
authorities 
participating in 
the different 
arrangements on 
the direct 
oversight of ICT 
TPPs could be 
expected in the 
range of 1 to 5 
FTEs for the 
leading 
authority, and 
around 0.25 
FTEs for the 
participating 
authorities. 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

94 

 
ANNEX 6 – HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS 

The  hypothetical  scenarios  presented  in  this  annex  are  extracted  from  a  report  by  the 
European  Systemic  Risk  Board  (ESRB)123  and  are  slightly  adapted  based  on  Commission’s 
own assessment by including some additional potential impacts and covering other financial 
subsectors. 

The  ESRB  report  puts  forward  a  scenario  analysis  that  looks  deeper  at  how  cyber  risk  can 
become a source of systemic risk to the EU financial system. The report explains why cyber 
risk, due to specific features, differs in significant ways from traditional revenue driven risks, 
such  as  credit,  market  or  liquidity  risks.  For  instance,  the  2018  outages  at  Visa124  and 
Mastercard125  led  to  several  hours  of  disruptions  in  the  card  payments  market,  affecting 
several million transactions across Europe and globally.  

The  ESRB  assesses  whether  cyber  risk  can  trigger  systemic  repercussions  by  developing  a 
conceptual  model  and  identifying  several  specific  scenarios.  Table  12  below  presents  three 
hypothetical scenarios to describe how a cyber incident can lead to a systemic event and how 
the  problems  addressed  by  this  initiative  are  relevant  to  this:  (1)  a  disruption  of  the  ICT 
systems  of  a  domestically  systemic  important  bank;  (2)  a  malicious  destruction  of  account 
balance  data  of  a  specialised  asset  manager  and  (3)  the  manipulation  of  the  price  feeds  of 
several  commodities  and  futures  markets,  as  well  as  the  trade  and  position  information  that 
market participants receive from the market’s central counterparties.  

Table 12 – Hypothetical scenarios 

Hypothetical 
scenarios 

Description 

Scenario 1: 
Incapacitation of a 
large domestic bank’s 
payment system 

Under  this  scenario,  all  payment  functions  of  a  domestic  systemically 
important bank are disrupted. The bank is a significant contributor to several 
retail payment systems. An update generates redundant code in the IT systems 
of  Bank  X  and  thereby  disrupts  their  payment  software  and  databases.  The 
software  is  purchased  from  and  maintained  by  an  ICT  third  party  provider. 
The update of the software includes a maintenance release provided from the 
ICT  third  party  provider.  The  disruption  lasts  for  a  long  period  of  time, 
resulting  in  millions  of  transactions  not  being  processed  and  financial  stress 
and social unrest begin to materialise. The crisis is amplified by the spread of 
fake news on social media that Bank X has been the target of a sophisticated 
cyber incident. 
Potential impacts: 

  The bank is forced to temporarily shut down all its retail operations and 

this brings significant reputational business impact. 

  The unavailability of account balances and deposits has cascading effects 
and disrupts a wider range of retail services. Debit and credit card, online 
and  mobile  banking  are  unavailable  for  a  while,  and  customers  start  to 
worry about the integrity of their accounts and losing their savings.  

  Fake  news  on  social  media  claiming  Bank  X  has  been  the  target  of  a 
cyber-attack  has  fuelled  speculation  and  amplified  concerns  by 
customers.  This  leads  to  a  bank  run,  and  doubts  start  to  spread  about 
other  domestic  and  international  banks  being  affected.  Customers  of 
other  banks  start  getting  anxious  that  their  banks  might  experience 

123 https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/reports/esrb.report200219_systemiccyberrisk~101a09685e.en.pdf  
124 https://fintechnologynews.com/visa-admits-5-2m-payments-failed-during-the-10-hour-outage/  
125 https://www.ft.com/content/1fd2a066-860f-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d  

95 

 
                                                 
similar  disruptions  and  start  withdrawing  their  deposits.  Bank  X  and 
authorities attempt to calm the public by stating that the situation is under 
control.  However,  the  inability  to  solve  the  issue  quickly  leads  to  a 
broader loss of public confidence in the financial system. 

  The  ICT  third  party  provider  is  servicing  other  domestic  systemically 
important banks, and supervisors start inquiring about whether the update 
disrupted the IT systems of these banks too. 

  The  bank  in  unable  to  open  new  accounts  and  attract  new  funding. 
Corporate  clients,  including  small  and  medium  sized  enterprises,  face 
revenue losses due to their inability to use their accounts.  

  The shares of Bank X register a sharp drop leading to loses for investors, 
and  the  bank  starts  facing  increased  risk  premia  in  wholesale  funding 
markets. Other domestic banks also start facing higher risk premia from 
international investors, due to insufficient knowledge about the market to 
differentiate between Bank X and other banks.   
Relevance to the problems addressed by this initiative:  

  The  current  legislation  applicable  to  the  bank  (CRR/CRD)  does  not 
include specific requirements, so incident reporting, outsourcing to third 
party providers and testing depends on the rules imposed by the national 
supervisor.  

  In addition, the notification of the incident is made to the NIS authority, 
which can be different from the financial supervisor (see section 2.1.2).  
  On  the  risks  stemming  from  the  ICT  third  party  providers,  the  current 
framework  does  not  provide  an  overview  to  financial  supervisors  of 
which and how  many  financial institutions are  reliant on a specific ICT 
third party provider, and thus supervisors lack both the awareness and the 
tools to address potential disruptions. 

Under  this  scenario,  cyber  criminals  are  launching  an  attack  on  the  account 
balance  data  of  a  specialised  Asset  Manager  X  in  a  Member  State,  which  is 
also a market maker and has consistently under-invested in ICT systems. This 
leads to the loss of availability and integrity of account balances with severe 
impacts  on  both  wholesale  and  retail  clients.  Under  this  scenario,  account 
balances, and other data assets, are permanently destroyed. 
Potential impacts: 

  At  first  sight,  only  Asset  Manager  X  is  impacted.  Soon  after,  second-

order impacts (e.g. on its customers and partners) are noticed.  

  Asset  Manager  X  tries  to  restore  the  data  from  backups  and  execute 
operations via alternative redundant platforms. However, as the malicious 
actors  were  able  to  alter  technical  recovery  procedures,  it  becomes 
evident  that  these  efforts  are  ineffective.  By  the  end  of  the  first  day, 
customers’ redemption and subscription orders are in a pending status. 
  Many  customers  did  not  receive  confirmation  of  the  execution  of  their 
orders. Asset Manager X’s management reaches the  view that there is a 
possibility  that  impacted  data  are  lost  permanently,  or  that  recovery 
would  at  least  take  a  considerable  amount  of  time,  possibly  exceeding 
several  weeks.  Customers  become  concerned  and  there  is  a  spike  in 
redemption  orders.  Asset  Manager  X  suffers  a  surge  in  call  centre  calls 
from  customers  seeking  to  understand  the  impact  of  the  problem  and 
wishing to establish whether their investments are safe. 

Relevance to the problems addressed by this initiative:  

  The specialised asset manager is not at all subject to the NIS Directive or 
to specific requirements on ICT risk  management,  incident notifications 
or  testing  under  the  EU  financial  services  legislation,  but  could  still 
spread panic and contagion to a full market.  

  Imposing  key  ICT  risk  management  requirements  and  testing  of  ICT 
systems  would have led to higher investments, and  would have  reduced 
the likelihood of the incident. 

  Incident reporting would have enabled authorities to timely communicate 

96 

Scenario 2: 
Malicious destruction 
of account balance 
data 

 
Scenario 3: 
Manipulation of price 
and position data 

to the public and limit potential risks of contagion. 

Under this scenario, cyber criminals have managed to manipulate the prices of 
several  commodities  and  futures  markets,  as  well  as  the  trade  and  position 
information  that  market  participants  are  receiving  from  the  market’s  central 
counterparty (CCP). The threat actors have managed to insert malicious code 
into  the  ICT  infrastructure  used  for  the  processing  and  outputting  of  price, 
trade  and  position  data.  This  leads  to  a  situation  of  uncertainty  around  the 
reliability of prices and positions, and consequently traders are pulling out of 
the market causing liquidity to drop, prices to drop sharply and automatic stop 
losses  to  be  triggered. The  resultant  market  panic  takes  on  a  self-reinforcing 
and  self-sustaining  dynamic,  which  causes  severe  losses  for  multiple  market 
participants  across  several  market  segments.  Under  this  scenario,  severe 
market  disruption  including  the  default  of  certain  trading  firms,  and 
potentially the affected central counterparties materialises. 
Potential impacts: 

  Market  data  providers  and  a  central  counterparty  are  simultaneously 
targeted in the incident. The affected market participants begin doubting 
the accuracy of reported prices and positions. As they continue to worry 
about  the  reliability  and  accuracy  of  prices,  some  traders  begin  exiting 
positions. 

  As more and more market participants become unwilling to trade, market 
liquidity  falls,  adding  further  doubts  regarding  the  state  of  the  market. 
Due  to  the  drop  in  liquidity  and  traders  seeking  to  exit  positions, 
volatility increases and prices continue to fall. 

  Automatic stop losses are triggered. These are generating a new wave of 
sell orders across multiple market segments, which further increases price 
drops  and  volatility  spikes,  and  feeds  negatively  into  the  confidence 
channel. 

Relevance to the problems addressed by this initiative:  

  The  CCP  is  subject  to  EMIR  rules  and  thus  supervised  by  the  financial 
supervisor  with  regards  to  its  ICT  risk  management  arrangements  and 
needs to report the incident to the financial supervisor.  

  At  the  same  time,  the  CCP  may  be  subject  to  the  NIS  Directive  if 
identified  as  operator  of  essential  services,  and  thus  may  be  required  to 
report the incident separately to the NIS authority, which can be different 
from the financial supervisor.  

  In  terms  of  testing,  if  the  CCP  has  a  cross-border  presence,  it  may  be 
subject to testing under different frameworks in several Member States. 

Source: ESRB, Commission’s own assessment. 

While the ESRB report acknowledges that to date no cyber incidents with systemic impact for 
the  financial  system  have  materialised,  it  is  nevertheless  important  to  highlight  that  some 
elements of these hypothetical scenarios have already materialized:  

  For instance, the incident at Bank of Valetta obliged the bank to temporarily suspend 
all operations to minimize risk and review its systems. The bank resumed operations 
the next day, while payments to third parties remained unavailable over a week since 
the breach impacted the system that processed such payments.126  
In 2014 in Bulgaria, a spam newsletter distributed via email and social media caused 
bank runs at two major national banks, with depositors withdrawing the equivalent of 
10% and 20% of the total assets held by these banks.127  

 

126 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/bov-payments-to-third-parties-remain-unavailable-after-cyber-attack.702732  
127 https://www.bruegel.org/2014/07/fact-of-the-week-a-spam-newsletter-caused-a-bank-run-in-bulgaria  

97 

 
 
                                                 
  Another example is the Carbanak and Cobalt attack, where cyber criminals infiltrated 
over  100  financial  institutions  in  40  countries  (including  several  EU  countries) 
resulting  in  cumulative  losses  of  over  €1  billion  for  the  financial  industry.  Cyber 
criminals were able in this case to increase the amount of money in a bank customer’s 
account and then steal the ‘made-up funds’.128  

  A report by Group-IB points out to an incident at a trading terminal owned by a bank 
where  cyber  criminals  perpetrated  into  the  systems  and  artificially  manipulated  a 
currency  pair  quotes  on  the  forex  market  by  executing  trades,  which  temporarily 
distorted  the  quotes.  The  attack  lasted  only  a  few  minutes  during  which  trades  of 
around $250 million were executed.129  

Such scenarios may appear extreme at  first  sight,  but  they are very plausible and the ESRB 
report highlights that “disruptive cyber incidents  seem to be a question of  when rather than 
if”.  

128 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/02/16/staples-hackers-made-one-billion-dollars/#1451caa037d0 and 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/mastermind-behind-eur-1-billion-cyber-bank-robbery-arrested-in-spain.   
129 https://www.group-ib.ru/brochures/Group-IB-Corkow-Report-EN.pdf  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 7 – GLOSSARY 

Capital buffer  

A mandatory capital that financial institutions are required to hold. 
Capital  buffers  were  mandated  for  banks  under  the  Basel  III 
regulatory  reforms, which were implemented following the 2007-
2008 financial crisis.  

CCPs 

CERTs  

CIO 

CIP 

Source: Adapted from Basel III. 

Central  clearing  counterparty,  a  legal  person  that  interposes  itself 
between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more 
financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller 
to every buyer. 

Source: EMIR, Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, 
central counterparties and trade repositories. 

Computer  Emergency  Response  Teams,  teams  of  appropriately 
skilled  and  trusted  members  of  the  organisation  that  handles 
incidents during their life cycle. 

Source:  Adapted  from  NIS,  Directive  2016/1148  concerning 
measures  for  a  high  common  level  of  security  of  network  and 
information systems across the Union. 

Chief Information Officer 

Directive  2008/114/EC  on  the  identification  and  designation  of 
European  critical  infrastructures  and  assessment  of  the  need  to 
improve their protection. 

CISO 

Chief Information Security Officer 

Concentration risk 

CRD IV 

CRAR 

CSDR 

Exposure(s)   that   may   arise   within   or   across   different   risk   
categories      throughout    an    institution    with    the    potential    to  
produce:  (i)  losses  large  enough  to  threaten  the  institution’s  
health    or    ability    to    maintain    its    core    operations;    or    (ii)    a  
material  change  in  an  institution’s  risk  profile.   

Capital  Requirements  Directive  IV,  Directive  2013/36/EU  on 
access  to  the  activity  of  credit  institutions  and  the  prudential 
supervision of credit institutions and investment firms.  

Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (EU) No 462/2013. 

Regulation  (EU)  No 909/2014  on  improving  securities  settlement 
in the European Union and on central securities depositories. 

CSIRTs 

Computer Security Incident Response Teams 

Source: NIS, Directive 2016/1148 concerning measures for a high 
common  level  of  security  of  network  and  information  systems 

99 

 
 
Cyber-attack 

Cyber incident 

Digital 
resilience  

operational 

eIDAS 

EMIR   

ENISA  

ESAs   

across the Union. 

An attempt to gain illegal access to a computer or computer system 
for  the  purpose  of  causing  damage  or  harm.  Cyberattacks  use 
malicious  code  to  alter  computer  code,  logic  or  data,  resulting  in 
disruptive  consequences  that  can  compromise  data  and  lead  to 
cybercrimes, such as information and identity theft. 

Source: Adapted from Merriam-Webster  

A cyber event that jeopardizes the cyber security of an information 
system  or    the    information    the    system    processes,    stores    or  
transmits; or it violates the security  policies,  security  procedures  
or    acceptable  use  policies,  whether  resulting  from  malicious 
activity or not. 

Source: FSB Lexicon 

Digital operational resilience is a broad concept, and it refers to the 
qualitative processes that a financial institution undergoes to build, 
maintain  and  review,  on  a  continuous  basis,  its  full  operational 
integrity,  for  a  safe  and  compliant  running  of  its  operations  and 
deployment  of  services.  That  requires  the  activation  of  a  set  of 
comprehensive  functions,  policies,  processes 
the 
financial institution to  be prepared to  protect  its ICT systems  and 
prevent  disruptions,  to  adapt  to  changing  ICT  patterns  and  to 
recover  from  those  disruptions  (within  certain  limits  of  tolerance 
either  acceptable  or  known  in  advance).  Digital  operational 
resilience requirements thus address  both  the institution’s internal 
organisation processes and its inherent technological dependencies 
to  third  parties  for  the  deployment  of  ICT  supporting  business 
functions – in particular in relation to the monitoring of the digital 
risks posed by third parties through outsourcing arrangements.  

that  allow 

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust 
services for electronic transactions in the internal market. 

European  Market  Infrastructure  Regulation,  Regulation  (EU) 
No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade 
repositories. 

European Network and Information Security Agency 

European  Supervisory  Authorities,  composed  of 
the  EBA 
(European  Banking  Authority),  ESMA  (European  Securities 
Markets  Authority)  and  EIOPA 
Insurance  and 
Occupational Pensions Authority).  

(European 

ESRB  

European Systemic Risk Board 

100 

 
  
 
  
EU stress tests 

Exchange of 
information 

FMIs 

FSB 

FTE  

GDPR 

ICT 

ICT risks 

ICT risk management 

The assessment at EU level of the impact of certain developments, 
including macro-  or  microeconomic  scenarios,  on  the  overall  
capital and liquidity positions of selected institutions, including on 
their minimum or additional own  funds  requirements,  by  means  
of    projecting  the        institutions’        capital        resources        and    
requirements,  highlighting    the    institutions’    vulnerabilities    and  
assessing  their  capacity    to    absorb    losses  and    the    impact    on  
their  solvency and liquidity  positions. 

Source: Adapted from the EBA Guidelines on institutions’   stress 
testing, EBA/GL/2018/04 

The act passing relevant information from one competent authority 
to another competent authority, done in the spirit of cooperation.  

Financial  market  infrastructures  are  critically  important  financial 
institutions  responsible  for  providing  clearing,  settlement  and 
recording of monetary and other financial transactions. 

Financial Stability Board 

Full-time employee 

General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on 
the  protection  of  natural  persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of 
personal data and on the free movement of such data. 

Information and Communication Technology 

Risks arising  with the use of network and information systems or 
communication technology. That  includes malfunctions, hardware 
and  software  failures,  disruptions  caused  by  human  error,  spam, 
viruses etc., misuses or other types of adverse malicious and non-
malicious  events  that  can  compromise  the  security  and  resilience 
of  such  network 
information  systems  or  communications 
technologies,  or  the  operation  and  running  of  processes  or  the 
provision  of  services.    For  example,  major  losses  are  incurred 
when  data  or  ICT  systems  lose  integrity  or  become  unavailable, 
confidential  data  is  breached  or  physical  ICT  infrastructures  are 
damaged. 

ICT  risk  management  is  used  to  describe  the  application  of  risk 
management  processes  and  mechanisms  to  information  and 
communication technologies in order to manage operational risk of 
a  digital  nature.  It  is  a  component  of  the  wider  operational  risk 
management  system  of  any  business  that  makes  use  of  ICT 
solutions.  Every  firm,  in  the  financial  sector  and  outside,  should 
identify  risks  to  its  ICT  systems  and  data  in  order  to  reduce  or 
manage those risks and develop  a response plan  in  the event  of a 
crisis. 

101 

 
  
 
 
 
IMF 

International Monetary Fund 

Incident reporting 

Notification of financial institutions to the competent authority of a 
major operational or security event having an actual adverse effect 
on the security of network and information systems.  

Source:  Adapted  from  NIS,  Directive  2016/1148  concerning 
measures  for  a  high  common  level  of  security  of  network  and 
information  systems  across  the  Union  and  PSD2,  Directive  (EU) 
2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market. 

Information sharing  

An  exchange  of  data,  information  and/or  knowledge  between 
financial  institutions,  which  can  be  used  to  manage  risks  or 
respond to events. 

Source: Adapted from FSB Lexicon. 

IORPS 

Institutions for Occupational Retirement Directive, Directive (EU) 
2016/2341  on  the  activities  and  supervision  of  institutions  for 
occupational retirement provision. 

ISO 

International Organization for Standardization 

Large exposure 

In  the  banking  context,  the  sum  of  all  exposures  of  a  bank  to  a 
single  counterparty  that  are  equal  to  or  above  10%  of  its  Tier  1 
capital. 

Lex specialis 

MiFID 

NIS 

OES 

Source: Adapted from BCBS.  

“Lex specialis derogate legi generali.” Special law repeals general 
laws.  A  principle  according  to  which  a  rule  of  lex  specialis  is 
deemed  to  apply  notwithstanding  contrary  general  principles  of 
international law. The priority given to  lex specialis is considered 
justified  by  the  fact  that  the  lex  specialis  is  intended  to  apply  in 
specific  circumstances  regardless  of  the  rules  applicable  more 
generally where those circumstances may be absent. 

Source: Oxford Reference. 

Markets  in  financial  instruments  directive,  Directive  2014/65/EU 
on markets in financial instruments. 

Network and Information Systems Directive, Directive 2016/1148 
concerning  measures  for  a  high  common  level  of  security  of 
network and information systems across the Union. 

A  public  or  private  entity  designated  as  an  “operator  of  essential 
services” under NIS, Directive 2016/1148 concerning measures for 
a  high  common  level  of  security  of  network  and  information 
systems across the Union. 

102 

 
Oversight 

PSD2    

Systemic risk 

Single Rulebook 

A supervisory framework that monitors and addresses the security, 
operational  reliability,  business  continuity,  risk  identification, 
technology planning, communication with users and overall digital 
operational  resilience  of  ICT  third  party  providers’  activities  and 
services.  

Source: Adapted from Swift.  

Payment  Services  Directive,  Directive  (EU)  2015/2366  on 
payment services in the internal market. 

A  risk  of  disruption  in  the  financial  system  with  the  potential  to 
have  serious  negative  consequences  for  the  financial  system  and 
the real economy. 

Source: CRD IV, Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of 
credit 
the  prudential  supervision  of  credit 
institutions  and 
institutions and investment firms. 

A harmonised set of prudential rules, dealing inter alia with capital 
requirements  for  banks,  protection  for  depositors,  prevention  and 
management  of  bank  failures,  that  EU  financial  institutions  must 
abide to. 

Source: Adapted from the website of the Council of the European 
Union, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/banking-
union/single-rulebook/.  

Solvency II 

Directive  2009/138/EC  on  the  taking-up  and  pursuit  of  the 
business of insurance and reinsurance. 

SRB 

SSM 

Target2 

Single Resolution Board 

Single Supervisory Mechanism. It refers to the system of financial 
supervision  composed  by  the  ECB  and  the  national  supervisory 
authorities of the participating Member States. 

Source:  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 1024/2013  conferring 
specific  tasks  on  the  European  Central  Bank  concerning  policies 
relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions 

The real-time gross settlement system owned and operated by the 
Eurosystem.  Central  banks  and  commercial  banks  can  submit 
payment  orders  in  euro  to  TARGET2,  where  they  are  processed 
and  settled  in  central  bank  money,  i.e.  money  held  in  an  account 
with  a  central  bank.  TARGET2  settles  payments  related  to  the 
Eurosystem’s monetary policy operations, as well as bank-to-bank 
and commercial transactions. 

Source: ECB website 

103 

 
 
Testing 

Threat-Led  Penetration 
Testing 

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/target/target2/html/index.en.html.  

A  set  of  information  security  reviews  and  assessments  performed 
by  financial  institutions  to  ensure  the  effective  identification  of 
vulnerabilities  and  to  validate  the  robustness  and  effectiveness  of 
their  ICT  systems  and  ICT  services.  It  comprises  gap  analysis 
against 
information  security  standards,  compliance  reviews, 
internal and external audits of the information systems, or physical 
security  reviews,  source  code  reviews,  vulnerability  assessments, 
penetration tests and red team exercises.  

Source:  Adapted  from  the  EBA  Guidelines  on  ICT  and  security 
risk management, EBA/GL/2019/04.  

A  controlled  attempt  to  compromise  the  cyber  resilience  of  an 
entity by simulating the tactics, techniques and procedures of real-
life  threat  actors.  It  is  based  on  targeted  threat  intelligence  and 
focuses  on  an  entity’s  people,  processes  and  technology,  with 
minimal  foreknowledge  and  impact  on  operations.  In  some 
jurisdictions this may be referred as Ethical Red Teaming. 

Source: G7 Fundamentals for TLPT. 

Threat intelligence 

Threat    information    that    has    been    aggregated,    transformed,  
analysed,    interpreted    or    enriched    to    provide    the    necessary  
context for decision-making processes.  

TIBER-EU 

TPPs    

Source: FSB Lexicon. 

The  European  framework  for  Threat  Intelligence-Based  Ethical 
Red-Teaming developed by the ECB. 

Third  party  providers  are  organizations  that  have  entered  into 
business relationships or contracts with financial entities to provide 
an  ICT  product  or  service.  One  important  type  of  third  party 
relationship  is  outsourcing,  whereby  a  third  party  provides  a 
business  function,  service  or  process  that  would  otherwise  be 
provided  by  the  financial  institutions  itself.    TPPs  include,  for 
example, data providers and cloud services providers. 

Source:  Adapted  from  the G7 Cyber Expert  Group “Fundamental 
Elements  for  Third  Party  cybersecurity  risk  management  in  the 
financial sector”.  

Trade repository  

A legal person that centrally collects and maintains the records of 
derivatives. 

Source: EMIR, Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, 
central counterparties and trade repositories 

Vulnerability 

Systematic    examination    of    an    information    system,    and    its 

104 

 
Assessment 

controls  and  processes, to  determine  the  adequacy  of  security  
measures,    identify    security    deficiencies,    provide    data    from  
which  to  predict  the  effectiveness  of  proposed  security  measures 
and    confirm    the    adequacy    of    such    measures    after    
implementation. 

Source: FSB Lexicon. 

105