Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance

Security, Compliance & Resilience (SCR) Principles

Govern the organization’s Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) through accountable oversight, evidence-based decision-making and defensible evidence that the organization is secure, compliant and resilient.

Principle Intent

Organizations establish and maintain governance structures, decision rights, accountability mechanisms and documented evidence to demonstrate that security, compliance and resilience practices are designed, implemented, monitored and improved in a manner that can withstand scrutiny from leadership, regulators, auditors, customers and other interested parties.

1. Přehled

Název	Standard
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance Policy	Description Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented security, compliance and resilience governance policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Documented annual policy review with version control Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history ∙ Annual executive approval and board-level reporting 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). 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.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)	Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented. ▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. ▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures). ▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system. ▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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.
Centralized Management of Security, Compliance & Resilience Controls	Description Mechanisms exist to centrally-manage security, compliance and resilience: (1) Controls; and (2) Related processes. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to centrally-manage the organization-wide management and implementation of security, compliance and resilience controls and related processes. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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.
Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation	Description Mechanisms exist to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ Shared drive or intranet for policy distribution (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint Online) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ Document management system (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence, Notion) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Document management / intranet portal (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence) ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., KnowBe4, Absorb LMS) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Policy management platform ∙ Version-controlled policy repository with access controls ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise policy management platform ∙ Integrated GRC policy module with automated review workflows ∙ Enterprise-wide policy acknowledgement and training integration 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented. ▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization. ▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards. ▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. ▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures). ▪ People affected by documentation changes are provided notification of the policy and standard changes. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework). ▪ The organization's cybersecurity policies and standards are made available to internal personnel. ▪ Documented procedures exist for requesting a deviation from approved standards. ▪ The responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation is assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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.
Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities	Description Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Designated internal security point of contact ∙ vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Part-time or shared security manager ∙ vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role ∙ Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget ∙ Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.) ∙ Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access ∙ Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads) ∙ Security Center of Excellence (CoE) ∙ Defined succession planning for key security roles 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). ▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). 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.
Defining Business Context & Mission	Description Mechanisms exist to document the organization's business model and mission. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Document mission statement and business context in writing Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Written mission statement and business context document ∙ Annual review Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal business context document ∙ Integrated into risk management process Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal business context and mission documentation ∙ Linked to enterprise risk management (ERM) ∙ Stakeholder review process Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise business context framework ∙ Integrated ERM platform ∙ Formal mission alignment review process ∙ Strategic planning documentation 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ The context of the entity's business model and its mission are documented. 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.
Materiality Determination	Description Mechanisms exist to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model) ∙ Simple materiality threshold definition (document what constitutes a material incident) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model) ∙ Documented materiality criteria aligned to business impact and applicable regulations Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model) ∙ Documented materiality thresholds (financial, reputational, operational, regulatory) ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules considered (if applicable) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model) ∙ Formal materiality determination process aligned to SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules (if public) ∙ Cross-functional materiality review team (Legal, Finance, CISO, Operations) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model) ∙ Enterprise materiality determination framework (SEC Item 1.05, PCAOB, SOX alignment) ∙ Board-approved materiality thresholds with regular review cycle ∙ Automated materiality scoring integrated with incident response workflows 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material. 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.
High Value Assets (HVAs)	Description Mechanisms exist to identify and catalog the organization's High Value Assets (HVAs) (e.g., crown jewels), including defining: (1) Criteria for high-value Intellectual Property (IP) to be categorized as a HVA; (2) Criteria for Technology Assets, Applications and Services (TAAS) to be categorized as a HVA based on business process criticality or dependency relationships; (3) Location of HVA Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD); (4) Assigned owners; (5) Minimum protection mechanisms that must be implemented; and (6) Assurance requirements. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Manual identification of most critical business assets ∙ HVA asset register (spreadsheet) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ HVA asset register with basic protection requirements ∙ Critical asset identification by business process dependency Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ HVA identification process ∙ Critical asset register with minimum protection requirements ∙ Risk-based prioritization of HVA assets Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal HVA identification program ∙ Critical asset protection requirements matrix ∙ Regular HVA review cycle Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise HVA program with board-level visibility ∙ Integrated critical asset protection within GRC platform ∙ Threat modeling centered on HVA assets 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and catalog the organization's High Value Assets (HVAs), including defining: (1) Criteria for high-value Intellectual Property (IP) to be categorized as a HVA (e.g., "crown jewel" IP); (2) Criteria for Technology Assets, Applications and Services (TAAS) to be categorized as a "crown jewel," based on business process criticality or dependency relationships; (3) Location of "crown jewel" Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD); (4) Assigned owners; (5) Minimum protection mechanisms that must be implemented; and (6) Assurance requirements. 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.
Steering Committee & Program Oversight	Description Mechanisms exist to align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Fractional security advisor Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Informal security advisory committee Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Steering committee / advisory board ∙ Quarterly security committee meetings with documented minutes ∙ Cross-functional representation (IT, Legal, HR, Operations) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Documented charter with defined roles and meeting cadence ∙ Board-level cybersecurity reporting Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Board-level Cybersecurity Committee or subcommittee ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with board-level access ∙ Independent security advisor / external audit committee 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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.
Business As Usual (BAU) Security, Compliance & Resilience Practices	Description Mechanisms exist to incorporate security, compliance and resilience principles into Business As Usual (BAU) practices through executive leadership involvement. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to incorporate security, compliance and resilience principles into Business As Usual (BAU) practices through executive leadership involvement. 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.
Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities	Description Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control. 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.
Measures of Performance	Description Mechanisms exist to develop, report and monitor Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) measures of performance. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Manually-generated metrics (spreadsheet-based dashboard) ∙ Basic security scorecard (patch %, training completion %, incident count) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Manually-generated metrics with structured reporting template ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Simple security dashboard (e.g., Power BI free tier, Google Looker Studio) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Automated metrics via GRC or security tool integrations ∙ Security dashboard with defined KPIs/KRIs (e.g., Power BI, GRC platform reporting) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ GRC platform with integrated metrics and dashboards ∙ Automated data collection from security tools (SIEM, vulnerability scanner, etc.) ∙ Defined measurement cadence aligned with board reporting schedule Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise GRC platform with automated metrics collection and reporting ∙ Security metrics integrated with business intelligence platform (e.g., Tableau, Power BI) ∙ Automated benchmarking against industry standards (e.g., CIS Benchmarks, CISA metrics) ∙ Real-time security posture dashboards for executive and board reporting 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Basic metrics are developed to provide operational oversight of a limited scope of cybersecurity and data protection controls. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop, report and monitor Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) measures of performance. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Forced Technology Transfer (FTT)	Description Mechanisms exist to prevent the forced exfiltration of sensitive and/or regulated information (e.g., Intellectual Property (IP)) to the host government for purposes of market access or market management practices. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Legal review Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Legal review Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to avoid and/or constrain the forced exfiltration of sensitive/regulated information (e.g., Intellectual Property (IP)) to the host government for purposes of market access or market management practices. 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.
State-Sponsored Espionage	Description Mechanisms exist to constrain the host government's ability to leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Legal review Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Legal review Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Legal review ∙ Steering committee ∙ Board of Directors (BoD) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to constrain the host government's ability to leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities. 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.
Contacts With Authorities	Description Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG) ∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators ∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership ∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts ∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts ∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC) ∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships ∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA) ∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation ∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators) ∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable) ∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Contacts With Groups & Associations	Description Mechanisms exist to establish contact with selected groups and associations within the security, compliance and resilience communities to: (1) Facilitate ongoing cybersecurity and data protection education and training for organizational personnel; (2) Maintain currency with recommended cybersecurity and data protection practices, techniques and technologies; and (3) Share current cybersecurity and/or data protection-related information including threats, vulnerabilities and incidents. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ISACA chapters (https://www.isaca.org) ∙ ISC2 chapters (https://www.isc2.org) ∙ IAPP chapters (https://iapp.org) ∙ CISA free resources and advisories (https://www.cisa.gov) ∙ SANS reading room, vendor security blogs Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ISACA chapters (https://www.isaca.org) ∙ ISC2 chapters (https://www.isc2.org) ∙ IAPP chapters (https://iapp.org) ∙ CISA free resources and advisories (https://www.cisa.gov) ∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ISACA chapters (https://www.isaca.org) ∙ ISC2 chapters (https://www.isc2.org) ∙ IAPP chapters (https://iapp.org) ∙ CISA advisories and threat alerts (https://www.cisa.gov) ∙ Sector-specific ISAC membership Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ISACA chapters (https://www.isaca.org) ∙ ISC2 chapters (https://www.isc2.org) ∙ IAPP chapters (https://iapp.org) ∙ Sector ISAC active membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC) ∙ CISA Cyber Information Sharing program ∙ InfraGard membership (https://www.infragard.org) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ISACA enterprise membership (https://www.isaca.org) ∙ ISC2 enterprise programs (https://www.isc2.org) ∙ IAPP enterprise membership (https://iapp.org) ∙ Sector ISAC leadership participation ∙ InfraGard and CISA partnership programs ∙ Sector-specific policy engagement (FS-ISAC, NTIA, etc.) 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 SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy personnel identify and maintain contact information for local, regional and national cybersecurity / data privacy groups and associations. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish contact with selected groups and associations within the security, compliance and resilience communities to: (1) Facilitate ongoing cybersecurity and data protection education and training for organizational personnel; (2) Maintain currency with recommended cybersecurity and data protection practices, techniques and technologies; and (3) Share current cybersecurity and/or data protection-related information including threats, vulnerabilities and incidents. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Quality Management System (QMS)	Description Mechanisms exist to govern a Quality Management System (QMS) to ensure security, compliance and resilience processes conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Document basic quality checkpoints for security processes Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Written quality standards for key security processes Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal QMS procedures for security processes ∙ Internal quality reviews Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ISO 9001-aligned QMS for security operations ∙ Formal QA function ∙ Periodic internal audits Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ISO 9001 certified QMS ∙ Dedicated quality assurance team ∙ Continuous process improvement program ∙ Integrated QMS platform 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Unstructured review of the cybersecurity and/or data privacy program is performed on an annual basis. ▪ Administrative processes require all employees and contractors to apply cybersecurity and data protection principles in their daily work (e.g., policies & standards). 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to govern a Quality Management System (QMS) to ensure security, compliance and resilience processes conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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.
Assurance	Description Mechanisms exist to define the basis for confidence that implemented capabilities conform to applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Annual self-assessment against documented controls Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Annual internal assessment against documented controls ∙ Track findings and remediation Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal internal assessment program ∙ Track assurance evidence ∙ Third-party assessments as needed Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal assurance program ∙ Third-party assessments ∙ Internal audit function ∙ Control testing schedule Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise assurance program ∙ Dedicated internal audit team ∙ Third-party assessments (SOC 2, ISO 27001) ∙ Continuous control monitoring platform 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define the basis for confidence that implemented practices conform to applicable security, compliance and resilience controls, where the control implementation performs as intended. 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.
Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D)	Description Mechanisms exist to define standardized practices to conduct Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestiture (MA&D) activities. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Note: Typically not required at this size; basic security checklist if acquiring or selling a business Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Security due diligence checklist for M&A or divestiture activity ∙ Legal/IT coordination on system and data separation Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Documented M&A/divestiture security procedures Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal M&A security due diligence checklist ∙ Documented integration/separation procedures Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise M&A security playbook ∙ Dedicated M&A security team ∙ Legal and compliance integration ∙ Technical due diligence framework 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy governance practices are informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define standardized practices to conduct Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestiture (MA&D) activities. 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
Zdroj	Požadavek

3. Související regulace

Regulace
Zdroj	Regulace

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.

Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance

Security, Compliance & Resilience (SCR) Principles

Principle Intent

1. Přehled

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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