Banks are asking US regulators to provide more detailed guidance on the risks presented by cloud service providers, such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
The Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are preparing to issue new interagency guidance on managing the risks associated with entering into contracts with external suppliers. A draft version of the guidance, put out for consultation in July, does not distinguish between different types of third-party services, but cybersecurity experts say cloud providers present unique risks that need to be spelled out more clearly.
“Getting more clarity on cloud would be helpful. I would like to see a little more detail on what’s expected,” says a chief information security officer at a North American bank.
The proposed guidance makes it clear that banks are ultimately responsible for the risks of operations that are outsourced to third-party providers. “You can outsource the administration of the operation, but you can’t outsource the risk. That still remains with the bank and the bank needs to have an effective risk management program,” says a senior regulator involved in drafting the proposal.
Regulators have previously voiced concern that overreliance on the big three service providers—Amazon, Google and Microsoft—could place the financial system at risk in the event of an outage or service disruption. However, they are understood to be reluctant to single out cloud providers for special attention or controls in official guidance, leaving it to banks to identify and manage the risks inherent in these relationships.
“Every cloud is different,” says the senior regulator. “It is the bank that needs to configure and manage the operation in the cloud. The bank needs to understand what parts of the cloud environment are configured and managed by the cloud provider and which still need to be managed by the bank itself.”
Whether using a cloud provider for applications, as a platform or for infrastructure, there will be split responsibility for different levels of security
Charles Forde, former op risk manager
Critics of the proposed interagency guidance—which is based on existing third-party risk guidance issued by the OCC in 2013—say it is outdated and ignores the realities of dealing with giant technology firms that wield enormous negotiating power. Some in the industry are calling for the contents of an FAQ published by the OCC in 2020 to supplement its 2013 guidance—which addresses risk management expectations with respect to cloud computing in more detail—to be incorporated into the interagency guidance.
While the OCC’s 2020 FAQ reiterates that “third-party risk management for cloud computing is fundamentally the same as for other third-party relationships”, it also concedes that “specific technical controls in cloud computing may operate differently than in more traditional network environments”. Banks are advised to clearly document the division of these control responsibilities between the cloud provider and the bank “in the contract”.
Charles Forde, a former operational risk manager at UBS, says that’s good advice and should be reflected in the final interagency guidance. “Whether using a cloud provider for applications, as a platform or for infrastructure, there will be split responsibility for different levels of security, from physical security, on up to the platform and to the application level. It needs to be clearly defined.”
Industry sources are also pushing for other elements of the OCC’s FAQ to be worked into the forthcoming guidance. For instance, the OCC concedes in its FAQ that banks may have to deal with vendors that “do not allow banks to negotiate changes to their standard contract, do not share their business resumption and disaster recovery plans, do not allow site visits, or do not respond to a bank’s due diligence questionnaire”.
The document goes on to detail a series of actions banks should take when faced with this situation, including considering alternate providers, being prepared for service interruptions, and “determining if the risk to the bank of having limited negotiating power is within the bank’s risk appetite”.
In a comment letter sent to US prudential regulators on October 4, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association called for much of this language to be included in the interagency guidance. It also called on regulators to confirm that banks may continue to enter into arrangements with cloud service providers despite the high degree of concentration among vendors, provided that appropriate steps are taken to address the other risks highlighted in the proposed guidance.
Further reading
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Off-channel messaging (and regulators) still a massive headache for banks
Waters Wrap: Anthony wonders why US regulators are waging a war using fines, while European regulators have chosen a less draconian path.
Banks fret over vendor contracts as Dora deadline looms
Thousands of vendor contracts will need repapering to comply with EU’s new digital resilience rules
Chevron’s absence leaves questions for elusive AI regulation in US
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron deference presents unique considerations for potential AI rules.
Aussie asset managers struggle to meet ‘bank-like’ collateral, margin obligations
New margin and collateral requirements imposed by UMR and its regulator, Apra, are forcing buy-side firms to find tools to help.
The costly sanctions risks hiding in your supply chain
In an age of geopolitical instability and rising fines, financial firms need to dig deep into the securities they invest in and the issuing company’s network of suppliers and associates.
Industry associations say ECB cloud guidelines clash with EU’s Dora
Responses from industry participants on the European Central Bank’s guidelines are expected in the coming weeks.
Regulators recommend Figi over Cusip, Isin for reporting in FDTA proposal
Another contentious battle in the world of identifiers pits the Figi against Cusip and the Isin, with regulators including the Fed, the SEC, and the CFTC so far backing the Figi.
US Supreme Court clips SEC’s wings with recent rulings
The Supreme Court made a host of decisions at the start of July that spell trouble for regulators—including the SEC.