TPM-04: Third-Party Services
Mechanisms exist to mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Control Question: Does the organization mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)?
General (52)
US (28)
EMEA (11)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU DORA | 29.1 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 | 21.3 |
| EMEA Germany Banking Supervisory Requirements for IT (BAIT) | 9.2 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2020 | SSO-05 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 11.3 16.1 22.4 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 4-1-1-1 4-1-1-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 4-1-1-3 |
| EMEA South Africa | 19 |
| EMEA Spain BOE-A-2022-7191 | 13.5 |
| EMEA Spain 311/2022 | 13.5 |
| EMEA UK CAP 1850 | A4 |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-1569 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 | 16 22 28 |
| APAC China Privacy Law | 20 21 38(3) |
| APAC Japan APPI | 22 23(1)(i) 23(1)(ii) 23(1)(iii) 23(1)(iv) 23(2) 23(2)(i) 23(2)(ii) 23(2)(iii) 23(2)(iv) 23(2)(v) 23(2)(vi) 23(2)(vii) 23(2)(viii) 23(3) 23(4) 23(5)(i) 23(5)(ii) 23(5)(iii) 23(6) 23(1) |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 14.2.7 15.1.1 15.1.1.14.B |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132-2018 | 25.1 |
| Americas Canada CSAG | 2.3 4.25 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.16.03.A 03.16.03.C 03.17.02 03.17.03.A 03.17.03.B |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Third-Party Management (TPM) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Require TSP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. o Contain "break clauses" in all TSP contracts to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on the TSP's cybersecurity and/ or data privacy practices deficiency(ies).
- Third-party management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for third-party management.
- A procurement function maintains a list of all active Third-Party Service Providers (TSP), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment.
- A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) is documented for every TSP that directly or indirectly affects sensitive/regulated data.
- Procurement contracts:
Level 3 — Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data with regards to third-party management. o Operates the Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program to identify and mitigate supply chain-related risks and threats. o Evaluates risks associated with weaknesses or deficiencies in supply chain elements identified during first and/ or third-party reviews. o Enables the implementation of third-party management controls. o Ensures the Information Assurance Program (IAP) evaluates applicable cybersecurity and data protection controls as part of “business as usual” pre-production testing. o Maintains a list of all active Third-Party Service Providers (TSP), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. o Requires TSP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. o Includes "break clauses" in all TSP contracts to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on the TSP's cybersecurity and/ or data privacy practices deficiency(ies). o Controls changes to services by suppliers, taking into account the criticality of business information, systems and processes that are in scope by the third-party. o Requires a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related services. o Monitors, regularly reviews and audits supplier service delivery for compliance with established contract agreements. o Uses tailored acquisition strategies, contract tools and procurement methods for the purchase of unique systems, system components or services.
- Procurement contracts and layered defenses provide safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target the organization's supply chain.
- A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function;
- A procurement team, or similar function:
- A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) is documented for every TSP that directly or indirectly affects sensitive/regulated data.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
- Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
- Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
- Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
Assessment Objectives
- TPM-04_A01 controls to be employed by external system service providers are defined.
- TPM-04_A02 processes, methods and techniques employed to monitor control compliance by external service providers are defined.
- TPM-04_A03 providers of external system services comply with organizational cybersecurity / data privacy requirements.
- TPM-04_A04 providers of external system services employ controls.
- TPM-04_A05 organizational oversight with regard to external system services are defined and documented.
- TPM-04_A06 user roles and responsibilities with regard to external system services are defined and documented.
- TPM-04_A07 processes, methods and techniques are employed to monitor control compliance by external service providers on an ongoing basis.
Evidence Requirements
- E-CPL-06 Manufacturer Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2)
-
Documented Manufacturer Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2) that communicates information about medical device cybersecurity & data privacy characteristics to current device owners and potential buyers. [note MDS2 is specific to medical device manufacturers]
Compliance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Medium
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Large
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Enterprise
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)