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

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Oversigt

Titel Standard
AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Level 3 Well Defined

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

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede reguleringer

2. Identificerede krav

Krav
Kilde Krav

3. Relaterede reguleringer

Reguleringer
Kilde Regulering
EULAW Artikel 17 Kvalitetsstyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Generelle principper
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Generelle principper
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 28 1

1.   De finansielle enheder styrer IKT-tredjepartsrisiko som en integreret del af IKT-risiko inden for deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, og i overensstemmelse med følgende principper:

a)

Finansielle enheder, der har indgået kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester til drift af deres forretningsaktiviteter, har til enhver tid det fulde ansvar for at overholde og opfylde alle forpligtelser i henhold til denne forordning og gældende finansiel tjenesteydelsesret

b)

De finansielle enheders styring af IKT-tredjepartsrisiko skal gennemføres under hensyntagen til proportionalitetsprincippet, idet følgende tages i betragtning:

i)

karakteren, omfanget, kompleksiteten og betydningen af den IKT-relaterede afhængighed

ii)

de risici, der opstår som følge af kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der er indgået med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, under hensyntagen til den kritiske betydning eller vigtighed af den pågældende tjeneste, proces eller funktion og til de potentielle virkninger for driftsstabiliteten og tilgængeligheden af finansielle tjenesteydelser og aktiviteter på individuelt plan og koncernniveau.

EULAW Artikel 28 2

2.   Finansielle enheder, der hverken er enheder som omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 1, første afsnit, eller er mikrovirksomheder, vedtager og gennemgår regelmæssigt en strategi for IKT-tredjepartsrisiko som led i deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring, idet de tager hensyn til den strategi med flere udbydere, der er omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 9, hvor det er relevant. Strategien for IKT-tredjepartsrisiko skal omfatte en politik for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, og som leveres af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, og skal gælde på individuelt grundlag og, hvor det er relevant, på delkonsolideret og konsolideret grundlag. Ledelsesorganet gennemgår på grundlag af en vurdering af den finansielle enheds samlede risikoprofil og omfanget og kompleksiteten af forretningstjenesterne regelmæssigt de risici, der er konstateret i forbindelse med kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner.

EULAW Artikel 28 3

3.   Som led i deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring opretholder og ajourfører de finansielle enheder på enhedsniveau, og på delkonsolideret og konsolideret niveau, et register over oplysninger om alle kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der leveres af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

De i første afsnit omhandlede kontraktlige ordninger skal være behørigt dokumenteret, idet der skelnes mellem dem, der dækker IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, og dem, der ikke gør.

De finansielle enheder indberetter mindst én gang om året antallet af nye ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, kategorierne af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, typen af kontraktlige ordninger og de IKT-tjenester og funktioner, der leveres, til de kompetente myndigheder.

De finansielle enheder stiller efter anmodning det fulde register over oplysninger eller, som anmodet, nærmere angivne afsnit heraf til rådighed for den kompetente myndighed sammen med eventuelle oplysninger, som anses for nødvendige for at muliggøre et effektivt tilsyn med den finansielle enhed.

De finansielle enheder underretter rettidigt den kompetente myndighed om enhver planlagt kontraktlig ordning for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, og når en funktion er blevet kritisk eller vigtig.

EULAW Artikel 28 4

4.   Inden de finansielle enheder indgår en kontraktlig ordning for brugen af IKT-tjenester, skal de:

a)

vurdere, om den kontraktlige ordning omfatter brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter en kritisk eller vigtig funktion

b)

vurdere, om de tilsynsmæssige betingelser for udlicitering er opfyldt

c)

identificere og vurdere alle relevante risici i forbindelse med den kontraktlige ordning, herunder muligheden for, at sådanne kontraktlige ordninger kan bidrage til at øge IKT-koncentrationsrisikoen, jf. artikel 29

d)

foretage fornøden due diligence over for potentielle tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester og under alle udvælgelses- og vurderingsprocesserne sikre, at den pågældende tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester er egnet

e)

identificere og vurdere interessekonflikter, som de kontraktlige ordninger kan give anledning til.

EULAW Artikel 28 5

5.   De finansielle enheder må kun indgå kontraktlige ordninger med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, der overholder passende standarder for informationssikkerhed. Når disse kontraktlige ordninger vedrører kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, tager de finansielle enheder, inden de indgår ordningerne, behørigt hensyn til tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenesters brug af de seneste informationssikkerhedsstandarder af højeste kvalitet.

EULAW Artikel 28 6

6.   Når finansielle enheder udøver adgangs-, inspektions- og revisionsrettigheder over for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester, foretager de på grundlag af en risikobaseret tilgang en forudgående fastsættelse af hyppigheden af revisioner og inspektioner samt af de områder, der skal underkastes revision, idet de overholder almindeligt accepterede revisionsstandarder i overensstemmelse med eventuelle tilsynsmæssige instrukser vedrørende anvendelse og indarbejdelse af sådanne revisionsstandarder.

Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger, der indgås med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester for brugen af IKT-tjenester, indebærer en høj grad af teknisk kompleksitet, efterprøver den finansielle enhed, om revisorerne, hvad enten de er interne, eksterne eller en pulje af revisorer, besidder de nødvendige færdigheder og den nødvendige viden til effektivt at udføre de relevante revisioner og vurderinger.

EULAW Artikel 28 7

7.   De finansielle enheder sikrer, at de kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester som minimum kan opsiges i enhver af følgende situationer:

a)

væsentlig overtrædelse begået af tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester af gældende love, administrative bestemmelser eller kontraktvilkår

b)

forhold, der er identificeret under overvågningen af IKT-tredjepartsrisiko, og som anses for at kunne ændre udførelsen af de funktioner, der er leveret gennem den kontraktlige ordning, herunder væsentlige ændringer, der påvirker ordningen eller situationen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester

c)

dokumenterede svagheder hos tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester, som vedrører dennes samlede IKT-risikostyring, og navnlig i den måde, hvorpå denne garanterer tilgængeligheden, autenticiteten, integriteten og fortroligheden af data, hvad enten det drejer sig om personoplysninger eller på anden måde følsomme data eller andre oplysninger end personoplysninger

d)

hvis den kompetente myndighed ikke længere kan føre effektivt tilsyn med den finansielle enhed som følge af betingelserne eller omstændighederne vedrørende de respektive kontraktlige ordninger.

EULAW Artikel 28 8

8.   For så vidt angår IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, indfører de finansielle enheder exitstrategier. Exitstrategierne skal tage højde for de risici, der kan opstå hos tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, navnlig mulige svigt fra deres side, en forringelse af kvaliteten af de leverede IKT-tjenester, eventuelle driftsforstyrrelser som følge af uhensigtsmæssig eller manglende levering af IKT-tjenester eller eventuelle væsentlige risici i forbindelse med en passende og løbende anvendelse af de pågældende IKT-tjenester eller opsigelse af kontraktlige ordninger med tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester i en af de i stk. 7 anførte situationer.

De finansielle enheder sikrer, at de kan opsige kontraktlige ordninger, uden:

a)

at deres forretningsaktiviteter afbrydes

b)

at efterlevelsen af de forskriftsmæssige krav begrænses

c)

at kontinuiteten og kvaliteten af de leverede tjenester til kunder lider skade.

Exitplanerne skal være omfattende, veldokumenterede og, i overensstemmelse med kriterierne i artikel 4, stk. 2, testet i tilstrækkeligt omfang samt gennemgået regelmæssigt.

De finansielle enheder identificerer alternative løsninger og udarbejder overgangsplaner, således at de kan fratage tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester de udliciterede IKT-tjenester og de relevante data og sikkert og fuldstændigt kan overføre disse til alternative udbydere eller på ny indarbejde dem internt.

De finansielle enheder indfører passende beredskabsforanstaltninger for at opretholde driftsstabiliteten i tilfælde af de i første afsnit omhandlede omstændigheder.

Linkede sager

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

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

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

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

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

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

    Terms & Conditions

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