third-party management Archives

Get Prepared for the New Computer-Security Incident Notification Rule

As of April 1^st, financial institutions are expected to comply with new cyber incident notification requirements for banking organizations and their third-party service providers. The Computer-Incident Notification Rule, as it’s officially called, is designed to give regulators early awareness of emerging threats to banking organizations and the broader financial system, including potentially systemic cyber events. The final rule—approved last November by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—takes effect on April 1, 2022, with full compliance extended to May 1, 2022. (To date, the NCUA has not adopted the new rule, although it’s possible they may at some point. Credit Unions should check with their regulator for notification expectation specifics.)

Understanding the Regulations

To meet the upcoming deadline, financial institutions need to be well versed in the intricacies of the new rule. The rule has two components:

The first part requires a banking organization to promptly notify its primary federal regulator of any “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident.”
The second part requires a bank service provider to notify each affected banking organization customer as soon as possible when the bank service provider determines that it has experienced a “computer-security incident” that has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause, a material service disruption or degradation for four or more hours.

Focusing on the financial institution expectations under the final rule, a couple of definitions must be understood.

A “computer-security incident” could include almost anything: a hardware or software failure, an innocent mistake by an employee, or a malicious act by a cybercriminal. However, the incident must result in actual or potential harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information the system processes, stores, or transmits.
A “notification incident” is defined as a significant computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded a banking organization in at least one of these areas:
its ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base in the ordinary course of business
its business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support that, upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value
its operations, including associated services, functions, and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.

In the event an incident rises to the level of a “notification incident,” the banking organization’s primary federal regulator must receive this notification as soon as possible, and no later than 36 hours after the banking organization determines that a notification incident has happened.

Recognizing the Gray Areas

The words “material” and “materially” are key terms; so much so that they are used 97 times in the 79-page guidance about the ruling. But beyond an “enterprise-wide” impact, the regulation does not precisely define these concepts, so financial institutions will need to specify what this term means to their organization as a whole. And since a determination of materiality is a prerequisite to starting the 36-hour “clock” for notification, they should do so ahead of time. The undefined nature of “material” to each organization creates a gray area open for interpretation that not only allows institutions some flexibility in this area but also opens the door for differences in opinion between an institution and its regulator.

In another gray area, the rule does not impose any specific recordkeeping requirements, which is a reduced burden. However, we strongly recommend keeping at least basic documentation in case the examiners ever question why your institution did or did not decide to escalate an event from a computer-security incident to a notification incident, and why it started the “clock” when it did.

Preparing for the Unknowns

At this stage, there are some unknowns about the implications of the new cyber incident notification requirements. One of the unknowns discussed in our recent webinar was related to an official contact person and method for each primary federal regulator. This has since been addressed and we recommend incorporating the following verbiage into the regulator notification section of your Incident Response Plan:

FDIC institutions:

Notification can be made to the case manager (primary contact for all supervisory-related matters), to any member of an FDIC examination team if the event occurs during an examination, or if the primary contact is unavailable, the FDIC may be notified by email at: incident@fdic.gov.

OCC Institutions:

Notification may be done by emailing or calling the OCC supervisory office. Communication may also be made via the BankNet website, or by contacting the BankNet Help Desk via email (BankNet@occ.treas.gov) or phone (800) 641-5925.

Federal Reserve Institutions:

Notification may be made by communicating with any of the Federal Reserve supervisory contacts or the central point of contact at the Board either by email to incident@frb.gov or by telephone to (866) 364-0096.

Another unknown as of the date of this post: Will the State banking regulators also require notification if a federal regulator is notified? The unofficial initial indication we have received is ‘Yes,’ but it would be good practice for institutions to check with their state regulator. Chances are regulators will request this, but whether or not it will be a requirement is still unknown.

Steps to Take Now

There are additional steps financial institutions can take now to be better prepared to address the requirements of the computer-Security Incident Notification Rule.

Our primary recommendation is for institutions to expand the notification section of their incident response plan to include the criteria for determination of a notification incident, and to add the regulator contact information above.
Institutions should also define “materially” for their organization and predetermine the meaning of “materially disrupted or degraded,” or what constitutes a “material portion” of their customer base.
Third-party contracts should contain verbiage obligating them to notify your institution under certain circumstances as required by the new rule. We also strongly advise designating an official contact person within your institution — whether it’s the CEO, CIO, or ISO — who should receive incident notifications from your third parties. It’s also prudent to specify a backup contact person—and make sure vendors know who the primary and alternate contacts are to ensure a smooth notification process.

For more information about this important topic, access our webinar on “New Cyber Incident Notification rules: How to Get Prepared”, or this recent blog post from Compliance Guru.

Compliance Review and Tactics

With 2021 in the rearview and 2022 well underway, it’s a good time to consider some compliance issues from last year, and current trends and tactics for keeping ahead of regulators this year. In 2021, we saw a number of compliance-related changes from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). One important development, especially for smaller community banks and credit unions, was the FDIC’s new Office for Supervisory Appeals. The office—launched in December to operate independently within the FDIC—considers and decides appeals of material supervisory determinations. It replaces the existing Supervision Appeals Review Committee.

The Office of Supervisory Appeals will “enhance the independence of the FDIC’s supervisory appeals process and further the FDIC’s goal of ensuring consistency and accountability in the examination process,” according to the FDIC. There’s a broad range of material supervisory determinations that institutions can appeal through the office, including CAMELS ratings under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System; IT ratings under the Uniform Rating System for Information Technology (URSIT); and Trust ratings under the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System. This new appeal process isn’t a guarantee that supervisory findings will be changed but may prove useful as a last resort for FDIC institutions facing downgrades in scores where there is a material disagreement between the FI and the FDIC.

Another significant FFIEC development last year involved amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. The BSA amendments included certain provisions to the USA Patriots Act to detect, deter and disrupt terrorist financing networks. This would appear to be an area of focus going forward, as 3 of the 10 most substantive (i.e., non appointment-related) FFIEC releases in 2021 were related to BSA/AML.

In June, the FFIEC issued a new Architecture, Infrastructure and Operations (AIO) booklet as part of its Information Technology Handbook. With this logical move, the FFIEC replaced its July 2004 Operations Handbook with a single booklet that merges three interconnected areas. In August the FFIEC also enhanced its guidance on authentication and access to services and systems—advocating for the widespread use of multi-factor authentication (MFA)—and released guidance on conducting due diligence on fintech companies.

One additional item of note in 2021; the FDIC’s tech lab, FDITECH, launched an initiative to challenge institutions to measure and test bank operational resiliency. Ultimately, a set of metrics may be applied to financial institutions—perhaps community banks in particular—to determine whether they are adequately resilient against operational disruptions. We’re keeping a close eye on this as it may lead to a universal formula for grading or ranking resilience. Anything that reduces subjectivity also reduces uncertainty, and that is a good thing when it comes to regulations.

Tips, Tricks, and Tactics

One of the main tactics to apply now to enhance compliance is to focus on the concept of resilience in all areas of the financial institution. Incorporate this concept into your business continuity management plan, vendor management program, third-party supply chain management, and information security. The key is to prepare in advance for a disruption—to put processes in place to reduce the possibility of disruption, and to minimize the impact of disruption should it occur.

Here’s another way to stay ahead of regulators: Financial institutions can connect the concept of risk appetite to the acceptable risk in their risk assessments. This goes beyond merely asserting that whatever residual risk you may have is deemed acceptable, which is highly subjective. Inherent risk less controls establish residual risk. However, residual risk levels must be compared to pre-determined risk appetite levels to determine acceptability. Only if the residual risk is less than or equal to their risk appetite can residual risk be considered acceptable. This process also reduces subjectivity and uncertainty—which should leave examiners and auditors much less room for interpretation, and result in a better audit/exam experience for you.

What to Consider in 2022 and Current Trends

Another area we’ll definitely be watching in 2022 involves the new incident notification rules that were issued late last year. All financial institutions will need to update their incident response plan and possibly their vendor management program and business continuity plans to accommodate these new regulations. These changes, while not necessarily difficult, can be pervasive in that they will cross over into multiple policies and procedures. In short, the rule requires institutions to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible—no later than 36 hours—after they determine that a notification incident has occurred. There are also new requirements for third parties to notify you if they experience a similar event, which could require changes to the vendor contract. The effective date of the new rule is April 1, 2022, with compliance expected to begin on May 1, 2022. There may be a grace period, but financial institutions should be prepared for examiners to ask questions about your adherence to these new rules at your next Safety and Soundness exam.

Regarding trends, we believe the focus on third-party risk management will continue in 2022 and into the future. Currently, there’s growing support for the idea of having the FDIC, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and other agencies coalesce around a single set of standards for third-party management. This would create more consistency with the rules concerning how regulators and others define third parties and vendors, and expectations for effective risk management. The outcome of the discussions around this topic may not manifest until Q3 or Q4 of this year, but institutions should work on formalizing their process for conducting due diligence when dealing with fintech companies and other critical vendors.

Safe Systems has been serving financial institutions for more than 25 years. To get more of our experts’ views on this topic, listen to our webinar on “Compliance Review and Tips, Tricks, and Trends for Staying Ahead of Regulators in 2022.”

Tag: third-party management