DORA
DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management

DORA DORA-Art.29: Preliminary assessment of ICT concentration risk at entity level

When assessing ICT third-party arrangements supporting critical or important functions, financial entities shall assess ICT concentration risk, including the risks of contracting providers that are not easily substitutable or of multiple arrangements with the same or closely connected providers, and the implications of subcontracting.

Maintained by Gerard BlokdykVerified against the published standard Control text last updated

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 32 controls across 13 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management · 4 controls

  • CPS230-43 Due Diligence Before Entering or Modifying a Material Arrangement
  • CPS230-46 Ongoing Risk Management of Each Material Arrangement
  • CPS230-P15 Precondition for Reliance on a Service Provider
  • CPS230-P48 Required Content of the Service Provider Management Policy

FedRAMP High · 4 controls

  • RA-3(1) Risk Assessment | Supply Chain Risk Assessment (RA-3(1))
  • SR-3 Supply Chain Controls and Processes (SR-3)
  • SR-5 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods (SR-5)
  • SR-6 Supplier Assessments and Reviews (SR-6)

FedRAMP Moderate · 4 controls

  • RA-3(1) Risk Assessment | Supply Chain Risk Assessment (RA-3(1))
  • SR-3 Supply Chain Controls and Processes (SR-3)
  • SR-5 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods (SR-5)
  • SR-6 Supplier Assessments and Reviews (SR-6)

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 · 4 controls

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 · 3 controls

CIS Controls v8 · 2 controls

ISO 27001:2022 · 2 controls

  • 5.19 Information security in supplier relationships
  • 5.21 Managing information security in the information and communication technology (ICT) supply chain

ISO 27002:2022 · 2 controls

  • 5.19 Information security in supplier relationships
  • 5.21 Managing information security in the ICT supply chain

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 · 2 controls

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · 2 controls

C5 (Germany) · 1 control

  • C5-SSO-02 Risk assessment of service providers and suppliers

NIS2 Directive · 1 control

  • Art.21.2.d Supply chain security, covering the relationship with each direct supplier and service provider

SOC 2 · 1 control

  • SOC2-CC9.2 CC9.2 Assessing and managing vendor and business partner risk

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

Other controls in DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management

You are reading one control. How much of DORA have you already done?

DORA DORA-Art.29 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of DORA your existing evidence covers. Hold NIS2 Directive and 17 of 26 DORA controls already carry evidence.

If you hold NIS2 Directive65.4% covered · 9 gapsIf you hold Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.157.7% covered · 11 gapsIf you hold ISO 27001:202253.8% covered · 12 gapsIf you hold ISO 27002:202253.8% covered · 12 gapsIf you hold NIST SP 800-53 Rev 553.8% covered · 12 gapsIf you hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.050% covered · 13 gaps

Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the NIS2 Directive pair alone.

See the released pairs, $299 eachBrowse the graph free

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 32 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.

MCP endpointAll DORA controls