Many thanks for this document which brings clarification for both competent authorities and organizations on the deliverables needed to be compliant on the applicability date. Still I have a question of consistency regarding a particular point. The expectation is for organizations to demonstrate we are at the "present & suitable" level. On page 7, expectation #4 is "The organisation has performed an initial risk assessment (e.g. major risks and related threat
scenarios both internal and at the interfaces).". To perform the initial risk assessment as described, organisations must have an Information Security Risk Assessment process not only present and suitable but fully operating and effective. Could you please provide your view on this point?
-
Resieri Marcato posted in Cybersecurity
11 months ago PublicI would like to suggest a link anywhere in this page to the guidelines shown in today's Part-IS workshop.
-
Diego Magrini posted in Cybersecurity
1 year ago PublicGood afternoon EASA folks!
Could I ask a clarification about 2025/011/ED?The mapping of competencies at Annex II "A. Part-IS7 training for NAA inspectors" mostly references to Part-IS.AR. However NAA's inspectors will audit organisations, therefore reference should be to Part-IS.I.OR and .D.OR.
Am I missing anything?
-
Ian Yell posted in Cybersecurity
1 year ago PublicHas anyone created, or found, a compliance assessment tool for the internal auditing of Part-IS / ISMS PSOE scores??
-
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
-
diomiro certaldi posted in Cybersecurity
1 year ago PublicLooks to me that Organisations need more time to really implement Cybersecurity, at all level as adopted by SMS
-
Thomas Dall Pedersen posted in Cybersecurity
1 year ago PublicHi all
Do you know why EASA has elected to use the word "appoint" and not "nominate" in the selection of the person/group being responsible for the ISMS?
I'm referring to IS.I.OR.240(b) Personnel requirements.I've been through the video from the EASA Part-IS workshop in November '24 and on day 1 at timestamp 5:34:00, Gerrit Neubauer asks if there is any difference from authority perspective between a "nominated person" and a "appointed person".
To this question, Angeliki Karakoliou from EASA replies, that they consider it as being the same.But, why not just use the term "nominated"?
Can I find references for how EASA interpret those terms other places than in the YouTube video?The reason for my questions, is the way the regulations set requirements for "nominated persons", but not as much for "appointed persons". Unless of course, those two terms are considered the same.
There are many references to "nominated person" like:
In AMC1 ARO.GEN.330 Changes - organisations, the compentent authority must make sure the nominated person is suitable before acceptence.
In ORO.AOC.135 Personnel requirements, a list of "nominated persons" is described, but no mention of ISMS.How have you interpreted this and do you know how the authorities will interpret it?
-
Vasileios Papageorgiou created a topic in Cybersecurity
-
Vasileios Papageorgiou created a topic in Cybersecurity
-
Comment
Marion Choudet commented on Vasileios Papageorgiou's topic in Cybersecurity
-
Eric Ekstrom posted in Cybersecurity
1 year ago PublicDear all happy to meet!
I am doing a bachelor thesis in "cybersecurity challenges for airlines".
Is anyone able to help me understand;
- The "air operators" are applicable to (EU) DR 2018/1139. But I don't find it clear that the 'airlines' would be subject to (EU) IR 2023/203. Or would the 'airlines' be subject to 2023/203 through their CAMO organization?I have more questions and any answers are super appreciated, so please connect here or LinkedIn.
Best regards,
Eric Ekström