The success of these standards has been widely observed both in France and on an international scale for many years and shows no signs of decline. For instance, the 2022 ISO annual survey showed a 19% increase in ISO 27001 certifications worldwide from 2020 to 2021, and a 44% increase in France.

After nearly 10 years of effective and loyal service from their previous major version, dating from 2013, the third edition of the ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 standards was published in 2022. What changes have been made and how does this affect our analysis of the Information Security landscape?

The first obvious change reflects the evolution of the “Information Security” field over the decade: “cybersecurity” and “privacy” are now part of the standards’ titles:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information security, cybersecurity, and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Information security, cybersecurity, and privacy protection — Information security measures

The evolution of security measures (Annex A): the main change in ISO 27001 

The new edition of the ISO 27001 standard presents very few alterations in its body: the few changes mainly clarify or make explicit some clauses of the standard without changing their content.

Some changes will require limited alterations to the ISMS, such as:

• The explicit obligation to document the objectives of the ISMS and to monitor their achievements (clauses 6.2 d) and g))
• The need to plan ISMS changes (clause 6.3): this clause could be covered, for example, by extending the ISMS improvement management process to any ISMS change, or by relying directly on the organization’s change management process
• The reinforcement of the obligation to control externally provided processes that contribute to the application of the selected requirements or to the achievement of the ISMS objectives, by extending it to externally provided products and services (clause 8.1)
• The possibility of choosing which expectations of “interested parties” (customers, management, employees, etc.) the ISMS must meet (clause 4.2 c)): the standard now allows the exclusion of certain expectations. This clause thus allows the prioritization of certain expectations or choice between mutually exclusive expectations. This change will probably require increased transparency towards the interested parties to inform them of the decisions taken. It should be noted that the management review will now have to take into account changes of the interested parties’ expectations (clause 9.3.2 e)), in addition to the feedback from interested parties previously required.

Nevertheless, the main evolution of the ISO 27001 standard is Annex A. This annex provides a catalog of security measures – the measures being detailed in the new version of ISO 27002 -, which provides additional information and implementation recommendations for each of them.

Updates to this Annex A can thus be studied in the new version of ISO 27002.

A modernized version of ISO 27002, which is easier to use

The update of ISO 27002 is simplified, modernized, and easier to use.  

First, the standard benefits from a simplified organization: previously divided into 14 chapters (some with somewhat convoluted titles…), security measures are now grouped into 4: organizational measures, people-related measures, physical measures, and technological measures.  

This edition also gives rise to a (new) reduction in the number of security measures, from 114 to 93 (133 measures were included in the initial version from 2005). The content of the measures globally remains close to the previous version, but they have been reorganized. The changes are summarized below:

Note that Annex B details the correspondence between the requirements of the old and new versions of the standard: this will be a very useful tool for organizations in the transition phase (at least for updating the risk management plan and the statement of applicability).

11 new measures have been added to the standard, addressing some of the shortcomings of the previous version as well as alterations in recent years:

• Three measures reinforce data protection: the deletion of non-essential or expired information (Information Deletion), prevention of information leakage (Data Leakage Prevention) and the masking of sensitive information (Data Masking). It should be noted that the standard neither obliges nor limits the application of these measures to personal data: each organization is free to choose whether or not to apply these measures according to its risk assessment and to apply them to the categories of information that are appropriate to its context.
• The operational resilience component has also been strengthened by four measures: the integration of intelligence on threats related to information security (Threat Intelligence), monitoring of abnormal behavior on information systems to detect security incidents (Monitoring Activities), monitoring of physical access and intrusion detection (Physical Security Monitoring) and the integration of digital operational resilience for  organizational business continuity (ICT Readiness for Business Continuity).
• A single measure dedicated to the security of cloud services (Information Security for use of Cloud Services) has been introduced, inviting organizations to define a process for managing these services from subscription to termination, integrating their chosen security measures.
• The three complementary measures strengthen IS protection at different levels:
  • A measure related to the hardening and protection of configurations (Configuration Management)
  • A measure related to the security of developments (Secure Coding)
  • A measure aimed at defining a filtering policy for Internet access (Web Filtering)

Another major new feature (only present in ISO 27002) to facilitate the appropriation and use of the standard, is the implementation of a description of each measure, which presents five attributes that can contain one or more values among the following:

• Type of security measure: #Preventive, #Detective and #Corrective
• Information security properties: #Confidentiality, #Integrity, #Availability
• Cybersecurity concepts: #Identify, #Protect, #Detect, #Respond, #Recover
• Operational Capabilities: #Governance, #Asset_management, #Information_protection, #Human_resource_security, #Physical_security, #System_and_network_security, #Application_security, #Secure_configuration, #Identity_and_access_management, #Threat_and_vulnerability_management, #Continuity, #Supplier_relationships_security, #Legal_and_compliance, #Information_security_event_management, #Information_security_assurance
• Security domain: #Governance_and_Ecosystem, #Protection, #Defense, #Resilience

For example, the new Threat Intelligence metric covers the three security criteria #Confidentiality, #Integrity and #Availability.

These attributes facilitate analysis beyond a simple chapter-by-chapter approach, and thus provide real value: for example, the cybersecurity concepts correspond to the dimensions of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), an internationally recognized standard widely used by organizations. The reconciliation of ISO 27002 and NIST CSF measures will thus be possible, meeting the constraints of many organizational functions (regulatory, audits, reporting, etc.).

The operational capabilities are the closest to the 14 chapters of the previous version of the standard: these operational capabilities can thus facilitate the organization of the IS Security Policy and the associated repository by limiting the impacts on a repository aligned with the previous version.

Overall, these attributes offer greater flexibility to organizations that can now build their security repository more freely according to their contexts and requirements.

Transitioning to the 2022 version

For organizations already certified to ISO 27001, the transition effort will be linked to changes in security measures, as the alterations to the ISO 27001 content require only a limited investment. However, the following actions will need to be undertaken:

1. Update the ISMS Manual:
   • Clarify interested parties’ expectations and which ones are addressed by the ISMS
   • Update the ISMS improvement management process to include ISMS change management
   • Insert a process summary diagram to show the interactions between processes
2. Document the security objectives and implement indicators to monitor their achievements
3. Ensure that performance and efficiency criteria are defined for each process
4. Ensure that externally provided products and services are included in the ISMS (or integrated into it, as appropriate)
5. Include in the management review the changes of interested parties’ expectations, by identifying those that are covered by the ISMS

In order to address the evolution of these measures, the next update of organizations’ information security risk assessments and risk treatment plans should measure the compliance of the ISMS with the new measures and organize and plan the implementation of any new measures selected. The statement of applicability will then have to be reorganized and updated to integrate the new measures.

The IS Security Policy (including the associated repositories: charters, directives, processes, procedures, standards…) will also have to evolve to consider the evolution of ISO 27001 Annex A. The use of attributes and Annex B of ISO 27002 will facilitate this change for all organizations.

In terms of timing, as ISO 27001:2022 was published in October 2022, organizations can now require ISO 27001:2022 certification. However, it is still possible to apply for ISO 27001:2013 certification until October 2023. From November 2023 onwards, any new certification will be based on the 2022 version of the standard.

For ISMS which are already certified ISO 27001, the transition period is 3 years maximum to switch to the 2022 version.

The specific case of organizations certified as Health Data Hosts (HDS)

Since April 1^st, 2018, organizations based in France and hosting personal health data according to the conditions detailed in Article L1111-8 of the French Public Health Code must have a Health Data Host (HDS) certification, requiring as a prerequisite an ISO 27001 certification.

As the standard has not changed since it came into effect, the HDS certification requirements are still based on the 2013 version of the ISO 27001 standard. The call for comments made at the end of 2022 on the draft of the new HDS standard nevertheless integrates the new version of ISO 27001 (although the table of reference documents still points to ISO 27001:2013). The future HDS certification standard, which is expected to come into effect in April 2023, will therefore be based on the new version of the ISO 27001 standard.

It should be noted that the evolution of the HDS standard will also clarify some of the hard points of HDS certification mentioned in our previous articles, such as the scope of application of activity 5 “Administration and operation of the information system containing health data”.

Conclusion

These new versions of the ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 reference standards thus enable information security measures to be adapted to recent changes in the field, so that organizations can benefit from the most up-to-date arsenal for dealing with their information security risks.

While a growing number of regulations are based on these standards, such as the obligation of ISO 27001 certification for Health Data Hosts in France or for Essential Services Operators in Belgium, this new version allows organizations to reinforce their level of maturity without forcing them to make loss-making investments during the transition phase. These investments will be mainly focused on the consideration of new security measures relevant to the treatment of the organization’s security risks.

Cet article The Evolution of the ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 Standards: Impacts on Organizations est apparu en premier sur RiskInsight.

Deux ans après, quel bilan ?

L’un des principaux changements induit par la certification est la délivrance des certificats HDS par un organisme indépendant accrédité par le Comité Français d’Accréditation (COFRAC), et non plus par l’Agence des Systèmes d’Information Partagés de Santé (ASIP Santé), devenue l’Agence du Numérique en Santé (ANS) fin 2019. Sept organismes ont franchi le pas et sont désormais accrédités. Ces organismes avaient tout intérêt à se mobiliser rapidement pour anticiper les nouvelles demandes de certification ISO 27001 et HDS et ainsi augmenter leur part de marché.

Et la demande est importante ! Au 21/02/2020, 89 organisations ont déjà obtenu la certification HDS, soit près de 4 certifiés par mois. Parmi elles, certaines disposaient déjà d’un agrément Hébergeur de Données de Santé.

Figure 1. Répartition des organisations certifiées Hébergeur de Données de Santé (HDS)

Sans surprise, la majorité des acteurs ayant obtenu la certification HDS sont des entreprises proposant des services d’hébergement et d’infogérance, incluant des fournisseurs cloud internationaux, et des éditeurs de logiciels. Ils représentent à eux seuls 83% des certifiés. Poussés principalement par des motivations économiques, ces acteurs mettent tous les arguments de leur côté pour conserver leurs clients et élargir leur portefeuille aux organisations ne souhaitant pas se lancer dans l’aventure de la certification HDS.

D’autres sociétés telles que des fournisseurs d’équipements biomédicaux ou de biotechnologies, des groupements de santé (Groupement d’Intérêt Public, Groupement de Coopération Sanitaire) ainsi qu’une mutuelle ont également franchi le cap, mais restent précurseurs dans leur domaine d’activité.

Et les établissements de santé ?

À date, seuls 3 groupements d’établissements de santé privés sont certifiés HDS, mais ce chiffre pourrait augmenter très prochainement. En effet, les Groupements Hospitaliers de Territoire (GHT) sont en cours de mise en œuvre de leur Système d’Information convergent, projet qui devrait s’étendre sur une durée plus longue qu’initialement anticipée dans de nombreux GHT. Ainsi qu’évoqué dans notre précédent article, ces travaux peuvent ainsi amener l’établissement support d’un GHT à héberger des données de santé pour le compte des autres établissements. Deux choix s’offrent alors à lui :

• Obtenir la certification HDS. C’est l’option vers laquelle devraient se tourner la plupart des établissements de taille importante. En effet, la taille de leur DSI leur permet généralement de réaliser le projet et d’offrir le service à long terme au GHT. Afin de se laisser le temps d’obtenir la certification HDS, certains d’entre eux optent pour un hébergement temporaire des applications mutualisées chez un acteur déjà certifié ou encore agréé HDS ;
• Externaliser l’hébergement des données de santé chez un acteur certifié. Cette option sera notamment plébiscitée par les établissements de taille limitée, pour qui l’investissement associé à une certification parait disproportionné. Ces établissements pourront par exemple privilégier un hébergement auprès d’acteurs certifiés HDS de taille comparable, qui seront plus à même de s’adapter à leurs besoins, et qui auront l’habitude de travailler avec des établissements de la santé.

Quels sont les principaux chantiers d’une mise en conformité HDS ?

La certification HDS reposant en premier lieu sur une certification ISO 27001, les recommandations de mise en œuvre de nos précédents articles restent applicables. Au-delà de la mise en place du Système de Management de la Sécurité de l’Information (SMSI) et d’un fort accompagnement au changement, les chantiers complémentaires reposent sur des exigences de l’ISO 20000-1 et de l’ISO 27018, ainsi que sur quelques exigences spécifiques santé. Ces chantiers de mise en conformité HDS d’un SMSI peuvent être
répartis en trois domaines :

Figure 2. Chantiers de mise en conformité HDS d’un Système de Management de la Sécurité de l’Information (SMSI)

Pour les organisations déjà certifiées ISO 27001 ou se conformant déjà aux normes ISO précitées, l’effort à fournir pour obtenir la certification HDS est moindre, et peut s’apparenter à un « quick win ».

Pour celles possédant un agrément HDS, la marche à franchir peut rester assez haute. En plus de la formalisation d’un référentiel documentaire plus conséquent que pour l’agrément, le contrôle de la conformité de l’ensemble du périmètre (ou « domaine d’application » au sens de l’ISO 27001) et de la démarche d’amélioration continue par un organisme indépendant spécialisé représente une difficulté additionnelle, gage de la valeur de cette certification.

Enfin, pour les organisations ne disposant d’aucun des accélérateurs précédents, l’effort à fournir dépendra du niveau de maturité vis-à-vis du référentiel de certification.

Quels financements pour les établissements de santé ?

Aujourd’hui, aucun financement direct des projets de certification ou d’externalisation n’est proposé. Cependant, grâce au programme HOP’EN, successeur du programme Hôpital Numérique, 420 millions d’euros sont prévus pour permettre aux GHT de financer la modernisation de leur SI. Ils pourront ainsi se tourner vers ces financements pour la construction de leur SI convergent. Tout comme son prédécesseur, le programme HOP’EN définit des indicateurs permettant aux établissements de mesurer leur maturité vis-à-vis des prérequis et des sept domaines fonctionnels. Une boite à outils a été publiée par l’Agence Nationale d’Appui à la Performance des établissements sanitaires et médico-sociaux (ANAP) pour faciliter l’atteinte des prérequis.

Comment sécuriser l’obtention de la certification ?

En fonction de la maturité de l’organisation, un projet de certification peut représenter une charge et des investissements lourds dans la durée, aussi bien lors du projet qu’à son issue pour assurer le maintien des certifications les années suivantes. Afin de sécuriser l’atteinte de l’objectif, certaines organisations optent pour une stratégie de certification en deux temps : pour commencer, elles se concentrent sur la certification ISO 27001, puis s’attèlent dans un second temps à la certification HDS. Ce choix comporte de nombreux avantages :

• Sécuriser l’obtention de chaque certification en limitant le nombre de nouvelles exigences à respecter et ainsi limiter le risque de non-conformité ;
• Faciliter la conduite du changement et l’appropriation des exigences à atteindre par les équipes : se concentrer sur un référentiel à la fois permet de simplifier la mise en place des nouveaux processus et nouvelles règles de sécurité en réduisant l’ampleur du changement à chaque étape ;
• Se laisser du temps pour mener à bien les chantiers de mise en conformité. Cette option permet de répartir les charges et investissements à réaliser sur une plus longue période. Cela est valable en particulier pour les chantiers techniques de mise en conformité cités précédemment, qui peuvent être particulièrement onéreux et chronophages.

Une seconde bonne pratique pour sécuriser cette certification est de réaliser un audit à blanc, c’est-à-dire un audit préparatoire mais réalisé dans les conditions réelles d’un audit de certification HDS. L’organisation y trouvera deux principaux apports :

• Obtenir l’avis d’un auditeur, indépendant vis-à-vis de l’équipe projet et de l’auditeur de certification, quant à ses chances d’obtenir la certification. L’auditeur aidera également à peaufiner et corriger les derniers détails avant le démarrage de l’audit de certification ;
• Préparer et entrainer les équipes à l’exercice de l’audit, et en particulier les aider à préparer les réponses et preuves à présenter à l’auditeur.

Des évolutions à venir ?

Après moins de 2 ans d’existence, le référentiel s’apprête à subir de grosses modifications. En effet, l’Asip Santé a annoncé en avril dernier la volonté de retirer l’activité 5 du référentiel de certification. Cette activité, concernant l’administration et l’exploitation du système d’information contenant les données de santé, a suscité débat. En effet, les activités d’infogérance pouvant être dissociées des activités d’hébergement, il peut s’avérer difficile voire impossible pour un acteur ne réalisant que les activités d’infogérance d’être consulté sur les choix réalisés en termes de sécurité de l’hébergement, et ainsi de respecter l’intégralité des exigences du référentiel. Les exigences liées à l’activité 5 devraient donc être proposées sous un nouveau format à l’avenir, afin de s’adapter davantage aux activités d’infogérance.

De nombreux établissements de santé, à l’instar des infogérants et les éditeurs de logiciels de santé, espèrent eux aussi un assouplissement du référentiel de certification HDS. Les exigences imposant l’atteinte d’un niveau de sécurité élevé pour la protection des données à caractère personnel, la marche à franchir peut s’avérer très haute pour les établissements. Ainsi, certains d’entre eux ont fait le choix de ne viser que la certification ISO 27001 pour le moment. L’évolution des exigences pour les établissements de santé reste également à surveiller, après l’annonce par la Direction Générale de l’Offre de Soins (DGOS) d’une certification des systèmes d’information hospitaliers en 2020, vouée à centraliser toutes les exigences liées à l’informatisation des établissements de santé.

Une autre évolution majeure possible concerne les GHT et leur obligation réglementaire d’héberger leur SI convergent auprès d’un hébergeur certifié HDS. Cette obligation ne perdure en effet que tant qu’un GHT reste constitué de personnes morales indépendantes. Cette obligation pourrait ainsi devenir caduque en cas constitution d’« établissements publics de santé territoriaux » en lieu et place des GHT, ainsi que proposé dans le récent rapport de l’Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales (IGAS). Ce changement reste néanmoins peu probable à court et moyen terme.

Ces possibles évolutions ne semblent aujourd’hui pas affecter les demandes de certification ISO 27001, dont le volume continue de croître en France ainsi qu’anticipé dans notre précédent article, avec une croissance de 27% des certificats ISO 27001 entre 2017 et 2018 selon les derniers chiffres publiés par l’ISO. Cette croissance devrait logiquement se poursuivre sur les années à venir.

Cet article Certification Hébergeur de Données de Santé : deux ans déjà ! est apparu en premier sur RiskInsight.

A NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN 2018 FOR HEALTH DATA HOSTING

The Health Data Hosting Decree was published in the French Official Journal on February 28, 2018. This decree confirms the developments announced in the Order of January 12, 2017, relating to the hosting of personal health data, which is itself an instrument of the act to modernize the health system of January 26, 2016.

This new decree makes Health Data Host certification mandatory for any public or private organization that hosts “personal health data collected during prevention, diagnosis, care, and social or medical follow-up activities, on behalf of natural or legal persons who are the source of the production or collection of this data, or on behalf of patients themselves”.

Health Data Host certification must be overseen by an independent body, which has been accredited by the French Accreditation Committee (COFRAC) or one of its European equivalents. Achieving certification confirms the conformity of the service with all the relevant requirements. Health Data Host certification remains valid for three years but is subject to annual monitoring.

APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

As part of the approval process, the candidate organization had to compile a (large!) application file which included a set of completed forms and supporting documents, as well as a compliance audit report prepared by a company of its choosing.

Rather than starting from scratch every time, Health Data Hosting certification now relies almost exclusively on recognized international standards: ISO 27001 in its entirety—and parts of ISO 27017, ISO 27018, and ISO 20000-1. Some specific requirements are added too; these mainly focus on two aspects:

• The protection of health data: protection of outsourced backups, prohibition of the use of health data for purposes other than the provision of hosting services, the traceability (including names) of the use of generic accounts, and other provisions;
• The transparency of the service: the option for the customer to carry out audits, a mandatory revocation policy, including the methods that will be used to return data, provision of the certification audit report at the client’s request, etc.

Beyond the “usual” gains provided by ISO 27001 certification, which are discussed at length in some of our previous articles, these additional requirements aim to professionalize the hosting of services, improve transparency between the hosting provider and its customers, strengthen health-data security, and reaffirm the rights of those whose personal data is being processed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

HEALTH DATA CERTIFICATION REALLY MEANS TWO CERTIFICATES

Health Data Host certification now includes two separate certificates, each tailored to a specific type of activity that the host may choose to carry out:

• A “Data Management Host” certificate;
• A “Physical Infrastructure Host” certificate

The diagram below, taken from requirements for Health Data Hosting, provides the relevant detail on the certificate required for the type of health data hosting activity to be carried out.

Activities requiring Health Data Host certification (diagram from accreditation requirements reference material v1.0, accessed on 04/04/2018)

A certificate is required if at least one activity within the scope of the certification type is to be carried out. For example, a hosting provider offering the outsourced backup of health data (Activity 6) will need to have a “Data Management Host” certificate; it will therefore have to comply with for requirements of the Health Data Host certification for this form of certification. Similarly, a p  rovider supplying premises (Activity 1) must have a “Physical Infrastructure Host” certificate and comply with the requirements applying to that type of certification.

Every hosting provider will have to acquire one or both certificates, depending on the health data hosting services it plans to offer to its clients.

FUTURE CERTIFICATION FOR APPROVED HEALTH DATA HOSTS…

Health Data Hosting approvals remain valid until they expire (withdrawal or suspension notwithstanding, as was the case when this was the regime in force). The period of validity will be extended by six months for approvals due to expire before March 31, 2019. After this date, all Health Data Hosts will have to obtain Health Data Host certification.

The mandatory nature of certification will boost the French market for ISO 27001 certifications, which is currently sluggish, according to ISO’s most recent study: in 2016, only 209 valid ISO 27001 certificates were awarded, compared with 227 in 2015.

120 Health Data Hosts have already been approved and logged on ASIP Santé’s (the French government’s digital health agency) website . Although some are already ISO 27001 certified (and assuming that the scope of the Information Security Management System includes the hosting of health data), additional certification will be required to become a certified Health Data Host. For the rest, certification covering all requirements will be needed, and this development should, in itself, lead to growth in the market for ISO 27001 certifications in future years.

… AND SOME FACILITIES THAT ARE PART OF AREA HOSPITAL GROUPS (GHTs)

Another consequence of the act to modernize the French health system is that public health facilities are currently coming together as Area Hospital Groups (GHTs) to share aspects of their work. Each of the 135 GHTs is organized around a support facility, which provides a range of services to the GHT, including “Strategy, optimization, and joint management of a combined hospital information system” (Article 107 of the act). This provision requires the implementation of unique applications for all GHT facilities and each functional area (computerized patient files, medication circuits, biology, imaging, etc.).

GHTs have two main (though not exclusive) options:

• Contract a certified third-party Health Data Host to host their data; or
• Host their data within one of the GHT’s facilities (for example, the support facility).

In the latter case, the host establishment will need to be a certified Health Data Host. While the majority of GHTs are still considering whether to outsource all, or part, of their combined information system, in late 2017, 57% of them were still planning to outsource hosting. Nevertheless, large numbers of GHTs may well, in the end, choose to maintain their health information system within the GHT and certify the host facility, in order to maintain full control of the information system and health data. This choice is likely to be seen mainly among GHTs that have large support facilities (a large central hospital, for example). This, then, will also drive strong growth in the number of ISO 27001 certificates issued in France.

FINANCIAL HELP TO SUPPORT THE TRANSFORMATION OF GHTs

To support the creation of their combined ISs, GHTs can draw on various forms of financial support. €20m has already been invested through Regional Health Agencies (ARSs), and a call for projects, with a scope of €25m, was announced at the end of 2017 by the French government agency, DGOS. The scope of the e-Hôp 2.0 Program , the successor to the 2012-2017 Digital Hospitals Program, should have seen funding, to a level of €400m, to support the development of health-care facilities to 2021. Given that it has been recently replaced by the Hop’EN Program, the eventual level of funding remains unknown at present.

Part of this funding may be used by GHTs to configure their combined information systems, for example by financing an outsourcing program with a certified hosting provider, or by financing the Health Data Host certification of one of the GHT’s facilities.

By changing the regulations related to the health data hosting at a time when the GHTs are configuring their combined ISs, the government is seizing the opportunity to strengthen the data security of patients treated by the public health service. Indirectly, this provides a dual driver for growth in the French market for ISO 27001 certification, which will result in the standardization, and dissemination of good practice, in information-security management across the healthcare sector.

Although the result of long-awaited developments, this growth is likely to lead to an explosion of applications for ISO 27001 certification and health data hosting in the coming years: will COFRAC, and the companies that will be accredited to deliver Health Data Host certification, be able to meet demand? …There could be a bottleneck on the horizon.

Cet article “HEALTH DATA HOSTS”: HEALTH PROVIDES A SHOT IN THE ARM FOR THE FRENCH ISO 27001 CERTIFICATION MARKET est apparu en premier sur RiskInsight.