+Článek 30 Klasifikace informačních aktiv a aktiv v oblasti IKT
---+Článek 30 1.
---+Článek 30 2.

Článek 30 Klasifikace informačních aktiv a aktiv v oblasti IKT

-

1. Přehled

,
Článek 30 1.
V rámci zjednodušeného rámce pro řízení rizika v oblasti IKT uvedeného v čl. 16 odst. 1 písm. a) nařízení (EU) 2022/2554 finanční subjekty uvedené v odstavci 1 uvedeného článku identifikují, klasifikují a zdokumentují všechny zásadní nebo důležité funkce, informační aktiva a aktiva v oblasti IKT, která je podporují, a jejich vzájemné závislosti. Finanční subjekty tuto identifikaci a klasifikaci podle potřeby přezkoumávají.
Článek 30 2.
Finanční subjekty uvedené v odstavci 1 identifikují všechny zásadní nebo důležité funkce, které jsou podporovány poskytovateli služeb IKT z řad třetích stran.

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související standardy

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky

3. Související standardy

Standardy
SCF Asset Inventories

Description

Mechanisms exist to perform inventories of Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) that:
(1) Accurately reflects the current TAASD in use;
(2) Identifies authorized software products, including business justification details;
(3) Is at the level of granularity deemed necessary for tracking and reporting;
(4) Includes organization-defined information deemed necessary to achieve effective property accountability; and
(5) Is available for review and audit by designated organizational personnel.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Spreadsheet-based asset inventory or Snipe-IT (free, https://snipeitapp.com)
∙ JAMF (https://jamf.com) for Apple device management
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer (https://manageengine.com)
∙ JAMF (https://jamf.com) or Microsoft Intune for device management
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer (https://manageengine.com)
∙ Ivanti (https://ivanti.com) or Microsoft Intune
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
∙ Lansweeper for network device discovery

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer or Ivanti (https://ivanti.com)
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB) (e.g., ServiceNow, Device42)
∙ Integration with network discovery tools (e.g., Nmap, Qualys Asset Inventory)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Enterprise ITAM solution (e.g., Ivanti, Snow Software, Flexera)
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB) (e.g., ServiceNow CMDB)
∙ Automated asset discovery integrated with vulnerability management
∙ CIS Control 1 & 2 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

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

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ Inventories may be manual (e.g., spreadsheets) or automated.
▪ Data/process owners for business-critical assets are documented and are reviewed as part of the annual asset inventories.
▪ Software licensing is tracked as part of IT asset inventories.
▪ No structured process exists to review or share the results of the inventories.
▪ Annual IT asset inventories validate or update stakeholders /owners.

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 perform inventories of TAASD that:
(1) Accurately reflects the current TAASD in use;
(2) Identifies authorized software products, including business justification details;
(3) Is at the level of granularity deemed necessary for tracking and reporting;
(4) Includes organization-defined information deemed necessary to achieve effective property accountability; and
(5) Is available for review and audit by designated organizational personnel.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Asset Management (AST) 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

Asset Management (AST) 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.
SCF Asset-Service Dependencies

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify and assess the security of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that support more than one critical business function.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

Asset Management (AST) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AST domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Asset management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Asset management is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Inventories are manual (e.g., spreadsheets).
▪ Data / process owners maintain limited network diagrams to document the flow of sensitive/regulated data that is specific to their initiative.
▪ Inventory of physical technology assets are assigned to individual users or teams and covers common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ No structured process exists to review or share the results of the inventories.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 i identify and assess the security of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that support more than one critical business function.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Asset Management (AST) 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.
SCF Data & Asset Classification

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure data and assets are categorized in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Data governance program

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Data governance program

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Data governance program

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

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ TAASD are categorized according to data classification and business criticality.
▪ Data classification and handling criteria govern requirements protect sensitive/regulated regardless of where it is stored, processed and/or transmitted.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to categorize data in accordance with organizational policies and standards.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed.

Level 3 Well Defined

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 ensure data and assets are categorized in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
SCF Third-Party Criticality Assessments

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify, prioritize and assess suppliers and partners of critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) using a supply chain risk assessment process relative to their importance in supporting the delivery of high-value services.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

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

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution).
▪ 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 TPM 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 identify, prioritize and assess suppliers and partners of critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) using a supply chain risk assessment process relative to their importance in supporting the delivery of high-value services.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.