+Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
---+AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Description

Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1. Přehled

AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Description

Mechanisms exist to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související regulace

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky

3. Související regulace

Regulace
EULAW Článek 17 Systém řízení kvality
-
EULAW Článek 28 Obecné zásady
-
EULAW Článek 21 Opatření k řízení kybernetických bezpečnostních rizik
-
EULAW Článek 28 Obecné zásady
-
EULAW Článek 21 Opatření k řízení kybernetických bezpečnostních rizik
-
EULAW Článek 28 1

1.   Finanční subjekty řídí riziko v oblasti IKT spojené s třetími stranami jako nedílnou součást rizika v oblasti IKT ve svém rámci pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT uvedeném v čl. 6 odst. 1 podle těchto zásad:

a)

finanční subjekty, které uzavřely smluvní ujednání na využívání služeb IKT za účelem provádění svých obchodních operací, jsou vždy plně odpovědné za dodržení a splnění všech povinností vyplývajících z tohoto nařízení a platného práva v oblasti finančních služeb;

b)

řízení rizika v oblasti IKT spojeného s třetími stranami provádějí finanční subjekty s ohledem na zásadu proporcionality a na:

i)

povahu, rozsah, složitost a význam závislostí v oblasti IKT,

ii)

rizika vyplývající ze smluvních ujednání o využívání služeb IKT uzavřených s poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran se zohledněním toho, jak zásadní či důležité jsou příslušné služby, procesy nebo funkce a jaký je potenciální dopad na kontinuitu a dostupnost finančních služeb a činností na individuální úrovni i na úrovni skupiny.
EULAW Článek 28 2

2.   Jakožto součást svého rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT finanční subjekty, jiné než subjekty uvedené v čl. 16 odst. 1 prvním pododstavci a jiné než mikropodniky, přijmou a pravidelně přezkoumávají strategii pro riziko v oblasti IKT spojené s třetími stranami, přičemž případně zohlední strategii více dodavatelů uvedenou v čl. 6 odst. 9. Strategie pro riziko v oblasti IKT spojené s třetími stranami obsahuje zásady využívání služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce poskytovaných poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran a uplatňuje se na individuálním a případně subkonsolidovaném či konsolidovaném základě. Vedoucí orgán na základě posouzení celkového rizikového profilu finančního subjektu a rozsahu a složitosti obchodních služeb pravidelně přezkoumává rizika identifikovaná v souvislosti se smluvními ujednáními o využívání služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce.
EULAW Článek 28 3

3.   Jakožto součást svého rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT finanční subjekty na úrovni subjektu a na subkonsolidované a konsolidované úrovni vedou a aktualizují registr informací s ohledem na všechna smluvní ujednání o využívání služeb IKT poskytovaných poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran.

Smluvní ujednání uvedená v prvním pododstavci se řádně zdokumentují, přičemž se rozlišuje mezi těmi, která se týkají služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce a těmi, která se jich netýkají.

Finanční subjekty alespoň jednou ročně nahlásí příslušným orgánům počet nových ujednání o využívání služeb IKT, kategorie poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, druh smluvních ujednání a poskytované služby a funkce IKT.

Finanční subjekt zpřístupní příslušnému orgánu na jeho žádost úplný registr informací, nebo jeho konkrétní části, dle příslušného požadavku, a rovněž jakékoli informace považované za nezbytné k účinnému dohledu nad finančním subjektem.

Finanční subjekty včas informují příslušný orgán o jakémkoli plánovaném smluvním ujednání o využívání služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce, jakož i v případě, že se některá funkce stane zásadní nebo důležitou.
EULAW Článek 28 4

4.   Finanční subjekty před uzavřením smluvního ujednání o využívání služeb IKT:

a)

posoudí, zda se smluvní ujednání týká využívání služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce;

b)

posoudí, zda jsou splněny podmínky dohledu pro uzavření smlouvy;

c)

identifikují a posoudí všechna relevantní rizika týkající se smluvního ujednání, včetně možnosti, kdy toto smluvní ujednání může přispívat k zesílení rizika koncentrace IKT uvedeného v článku 29;

d)

s náležitou péčí přezkoumají potenciální poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran a pomocí procesů výběru a vyhodnocení zajistí vhodnost poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran;

e)

identifikují a posoudí střety zájmů, které mohou smluvní ujednání způsobit.
EULAW Článek 28 5

5.   Finanční subjekty smí uzavírat smluvní ujednání pouze s poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, kteří splňují příslušné normy v oblasti bezpečnosti informací. Pokud se tato smluvní ujednání týkají zásadních nebo důležitých funkcí, finanční subjekty před uzavřením ujednání náležitě zváží, zda poskytovatelé služeb IKT z řad třetích stran uplatňují nejaktuálnější a nejkvalitnější normy bezpečnosti informací.
EULAW Článek 28 6

6.   Finanční subjekty při výkonu práv na přístup, kontrolu a audit u poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran předem na základě přístupu založeného na posouzení rizik stanoví četnost auditů a kontrol, jakož i oblasti, které budou auditovány s využitím obecně uznávaných auditních standardů a v souladu se všemi pokyny orgánů dohledu pro využití a začlenění těchto auditních standardů.

Pokud se smluvní ujednání uzavřená s poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran o využívání služeb IKT týkají technicky velmi složitých otázek, finanční subjekt ověří, že interní nebo externí auditoři nebo skupina auditorů disponují odpovídajícími dovednostmi a znalostmi pro účinné provedení příslušných auditů a posouzení.
EULAW Článek 28 7

7.   Finanční subjekty zajistí, aby smluvní ujednání o využívání služeb IKT bylo možné ukončit za kterékoli z těchto okolností:

a)

poskytovatel služeb IKT z řad třetích stran zásadním způsobem poruší platné právní předpisy nebo smluvní podmínky;

b)

sledováním rizika v oblasti IKT spojeného s třetími stranami se zjistí okolnosti, u nichž se má za to, že mohou změnit plnění funkcí poskytovaných prostřednictvím smluvního ujednání, včetně podstatných změn ovlivňujících dané ujednání nebo situaci poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran;

c)

v rámci celkového řízení rizika v oblasti IKT poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran jsou zjištěna slabá místa, a to zejména s ohledem na zajištění dostupnosti, hodnověrnosti, integrity a důvěrnosti údajů, ať již osobních či jiných citlivých údajů, nebo jiných než osobních údajů;

d)

příslušný orgán již nedokáže dále efektivně dohlížet na finanční subjekt v důsledku podmínek příslušného smluvního ujednání nebo okolností s ním souvisejících.
EULAW Článek 28 8

8.   U služeb IKT podporujících zásadní nebo důležité funkce zavedou finanční subjekty strategie ukončení smluvního vztahu. Strategie ukončení smluvního vztahu zohlední rizika, jež mohou vzniknout na úrovni poskytovatelů služeb IKT z řad třetích stran, zejména jejich případné selhání, snížení kvality poskytovaných služeb a funkcí IKT, jakékoli narušení činnosti v důsledku nevhodného či chybného poskytování služeb IKT nebo jakéhokoli vážného rizika vznikajícího v souvislosti s řádným a nepřetržitým poskytováním příslušné služby IKT, nebo v případě ukončení smluvních ujednání s poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran za kterékoli z okolností uvedených v odstavci 7.

Finanční subjekty zajistí, aby byly schopny ukončit smluvní ujednání, aniž by došlo k:

a)

narušení jejich činností,

b)

narušení dodržování regulatorních požadavků,

c)

zhoršení kontinuity a kvality služeb, které poskytují klientům.

Plány ukončení smluvního vztahu musí být komplexní, zdokumentované a splňovat kritéria vymezená v čl. 4 odst. 2, musí být dostatečně otestovány a pravidelně přezkoumávány.

Finanční subjekty identifikují alternativní řešení a vypracují plány přechodu, které jim umožní odebrání nasmlouvaných služeb IKT a příslušných dat od poskytovatele služeb IKT z řad třetích stran a jejich bezpečný a integrovaný přenos k alternativnímu poskytovateli, nebo jejich začlenění v rámci vlastní organizace.

Finanční subjekty mají zavedena vhodná opatření pro nepředvídané události, aby byl zachován provoz, pokud by nastaly okolnosti uvedené v prvním pododstavci.

Propojené úkoly

Vazby
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
is blocked by RSK-20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks PM-30 Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy
blocks SA-09(03) Establish and Maintain Trust Relationship with Providers
blocks SR-02 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-07 Supply Chain Operations Security
blocks SR-02 [L] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [M] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [H] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks 03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.