+Incident Handling
---+Correlation with External Organizations

Incident Handling

Description

Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Přehled

Correlation with External Organizations

Description

Mechanisms exist to coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související regulace

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky

3. Související regulace

Regulace
EULAW Článek 22 Politika pro řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT

Článek 22

Politika pro řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT

V rámci mechanismů pro detekci neobvyklých aktivit, včetně problémů s fungováním sítě IKT a incidentů souvisejících s IKT, finanční subjekty vypracují, zdokumentují a zavedou politiku pro incidenty související s IKT, prostřednictvím které:

a) 

dokumentují proces řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT uvedený v článku 17 nařízení (EU) 2022/2554;

b) 

vypracují seznam příslušných kontaktů na interní funkce a externí zúčastněné strany, které se přímo podílejí na zajištění bezpečnosti operací IKT, včetně:

i) 

detekce a monitorování kybernetických hrozeb;

ii) 

detekce neobvyklých aktivit;

iii) 

řízení zranitelností;

c) 

vypracují, zavedou a používají technické, organizační a provozní mechanismy na podporu procesu řízení incidentů souvisejících s IKT, včetně mechanismů umožňujících včasnou detekci neobvyklých aktivit a chování v souladu s článkem 23 tohoto nařízení;

▼C1

d) 

uchovávají veškeré důkazy týkající se incidentů souvisejících s IKT po dobu, která není delší, než je nezbytné pro účely, pro které jsou údaje shromažďovány, a která je úměrná významu zasažených obchodních funkcí, podpůrných procesů a aktiv v oblasti IKT a informačních aktiv, v souladu s čl. 8 odst. 2 nařízení Komise v přenesené pravomoci (EU) 2024/1772 ( 2 ) a je v souladu s použitelným požadavkem na uchovávání podle práva Unie;

▼B

e) 

vypracují a zavedou mechanismy pro analýzu významných nebo opakujících se incidentů souvisejících s IKT a vzorců, pokud jde o počet a výskyt incidentů souvisejících s IKT.

Pro účely písmene d) uchovávají finanční subjekty důkazy uvedené v tomto písmenu bezpečným způsobem.
EULAW Článek 23 Detekce neobvyklých aktivit a kritéria pro detekci a reakci v případě incidentů souvisejících s IKT
-
EULAW Článek 31 Řízení rizika v oblasti IKT
-
EULAW Článek 9 Ochrana a prevence
-
EULAW Článek 14 Komunikace
-
EULAW Článek 18 Klasifikace incidentů souvisejících s IKT a kybernetických hrozeb
-
EULAW Článek 21 Opatření k řízení kybernetických bezpečnostních rizik
-
EULAW Článek 23 Oznamovací povinnosti
-
EULAW Článek 9 Ochrana a prevence
-
EULAW Článek 14 Komunikace
-
EULAW Článek 18 Klasifikace incidentů souvisejících s IKT a kybernetických hrozeb
-
EULAW Článek 21 Opatření k řízení kybernetických bezpečnostních rizik
-
EULAW Článek 23 Oznamovací povinnosti
-
EULAW Článek 9 4

4.   Jako součást rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT uvedeného v čl. 6 odst. 1 finanční subjekty:

a)

vypracují a zdokumentují politiku zabezpečení informací vymezující pravidla na ochranu dostupnosti, hodnověrnosti, integrity a důvěrnosti údajů, informačních aktiv a aktiv v oblasti IKT, případně včetně uvedených aktiv jejich zákazníků;

b)

zavedou vhodné řízení sítí a infrastruktury na základě rizika využívající odpovídajících technik, metod a protokolů, které mohou zahrnovat zavedení automatizovaných mechanismů pro izolaci dotčených informačních aktiv v případě kybernetických útoků;

c)

uplatňují politiky omezující fyzický nebo logický přístup k informačním aktivům a aktivům v oblasti IKT na minimum nezbytné pro výkon oprávněných a schválených funkcí a činností a za tímto účelem vytvoří soubor politik, postupů a kontrol, který se zabývá přístupovými právy, a zajistí jejich řádnou správu;

d)

zavedou politiky a protokoly pro silné ověřovací mechanismy založené na příslušných normách a systémech speciálních kontrol a opatření na ochranu kryptografických klíčů, jimiž jsou zašifrována data, na základě výsledků schválené klasifikace dat a procesů posuzování rizika v oblasti IKT;

e)

zavedou zdokumentované politiky, postupy a kontroly pro řízení změn IKT, včetně změn softwarových, hardwarových a firmwarových komponentů, systémů nebo parametrů zabezpečení, vycházející z posouzení rizik a tvořící nedílnou součást celkových postupů finančního subjektu pro řízení změn, s cílem zajistit, aby všechny změny systémů IKT byly řízeně zaznamenány, otestovány, vyhodnoceny, schváleny, zavedeny a ověřeny;

f)

mají odpovídající a komplexní zdokumentované politiky pro dočasné opravy a aktualizace.

Pro účely prvního pododstavce písm. b) finanční subjekty navrhnou infrastrukturu připojení k síti umožňující jeho okamžité přerušení nebo segmentaci s cílem minimalizovat šíření krize a zabránit jejímu vzniku, zejména u vzájemně propojených finančních procesů.

Pro účely prvního pododstavce písm. e) jsou postupy řízení změn v oblasti IKT schvalovány příslušnými liniemi vedení a platí pro ně specifické protokoly.
EULAW Článek 14 1

1.   Jako součást rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT uvedeného v čl. 6 odst. 1 finanční subjekty zavedou krizové komunikační plány umožňující odpovědné informování klientů, protistran a případně veřejnosti alespoň o závažných incidentech souvisejících s IKT nebo zranitelnostech.
EULAW Článek 14 2

2.   Jako součást rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT finanční subjekty uplatňují komunikační strategie pro interní zaměstnance a externí zainteresované strany. Komunikační politiky pro zaměstnance zohledňují nutnost rozlišovat mezi pracovníky podílejícími se na řízení rizika v oblasti IKT, zejména pracovníky odpovědnými za reakci a obnovu, a pracovníky, které je nutné informovat.
EULAW Článek 14 3

3.   Uplatňováním komunikační strategie pro incidenty související s IKT a plněním funkce styku s veřejností a médii pro tyto účely je pověřena alespoň jedna osoba v rámci finančního subjektu.
EULAW Článek 18 1

1.   Finanční subjekty klasifikují incidenty související s IKT a stanoví jejich dopad podle těchto kritérií:

a)

počet nebo význam dotčených klientů nebo finančních protistran a případně výše nebo počet transakcí dotčených incidentem souvisejícím s IKT, a zda incident související s IKT poškodil dobrou pověst;

b)

doba trvání incidentu souvisejícího s IKT, včetně doby odstávky služby;

c)

územní rozsah, pokud jde o oblasti dotčené incidentem souvisejícím s IKT, zejména má-li incident dopad na více než dva členské státy;

d)

ztráty údajů, které incident související s IKT způsobil, pokud jde o dostupnost, hodnověrnost, integritu nebo důvěrnost údajů;

e)

význam dotčených služeb, včetně transakcí a operací finančního subjektu;

f)

ekonomický dopad incidentu souvisejícího s IKT, zejména přímé a nepřímé náklady a ztráty, v absolutním i relativním vyjádření.
EULAW Článek 18 2

2.   Finanční subjekty klasifikují kybernetické hrozby jako závažné na základě toho, jak zásadní jsou ohrožené služby, včetně transakcí a operací finančních subjektů, jaký je počet nebo význam klientů nebo finančních protistran a územní rozsah ohrožených oblastí.

Propojené úkoly

Vazby
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Respond
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
is blocked by IRO-06 Incident Handling – Assessment Procedure
blocks IR-04 Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [L] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [M] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [H] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [P] Incident Handling
blocks 03.03.04 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
blocks 03.06.01 Incident Handling
blocks 03.06.02 Incident Monitoring, Reporting, and Response Assistance
blocks 03.06.05 Incident Response Plan
blocks 03.17.03E Component Authenticity
blocks GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities
blocks DE.AE Adverse Event Analysis
blocks DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
blocks DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources
blocks DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
blocks DE.AE-06 Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff and tools
blocks DE.AE-08 Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
blocks RS RESPOND
blocks RS.MA Incident Management
blocks RS.MA-01 The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is declared
blocks RS.MA-02 Incident reports are triaged and validated
blocks RS.MA-04 Incidents are escalated or elevated as needed
blocks RS.AN Incident Analysis
blocks RS.AN-06 Actions performed during an investigation are recorded, and the records' integrity and provenance are preserved
blocks RS.CO Incident Response Reporting and Communication
blocks RS.CO-02 Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents
blocks RS.CO-03 Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders
blocks RS.MI Incident Mitigation
blocks RS.MI-01 Incidents are contained
blocks RS.MI-02 Incidents are eradicated
blocks RC.RP-06 The end of incident recovery is declared based on criteria, and incident-related documentation is completed
  • 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.