+Risk Management Program

Risk Management Program

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls that are aligned with:
(1) The organization's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM); and
(2) Industry-recognized cybersecurity risk management practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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 facilitate the implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls.

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

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 8 Overholdelse af krav
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Risikostyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Risikostyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Risikostyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Risikostyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 17 Kvalitetsstyringssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 1 Overordnet risikoprofil og kompleksitet

Artikel 1

Overordnet risikoprofil og kompleksitet

Ved udviklingen og gennemførelsen af de IKT-sikkerhedspolitikker, -procedurer, -protokoller og -værktøjer, der er omhandlet i afsnit II, og den forenklede ramme for IKT-risikostyring, der er omhandlet i afsnit III, skal der tages hensyn til den finansielle enheds størrelse og overordnede risikoprofil samt karakteren, omfanget og elementerne af øget eller reduceret kompleksitet af dens tjenester, aktiviteter og operationer, herunder elementer vedrørende:

a) 

kryptering og kryptografi

b) 

sikkerhed i forbindelse med IKT-operationer

c) 

netsikkerhed

d) 

styring af IKT-projekter og -ændringer

e) 

IKT-risikoens potentielle indvirkning på fortroligheden, integriteten og tilgængeligheden af data, og den potentielle indvirkning af forstyrrelserne på driftsstabiliteten og tilgængeligheden af den finansielle enheds aktiviteter.

EULAW Artikel 2 Generelle elementer i IKT-sikkerhedspolitikker, -procedurer, -protokoller og -værktøjer
-
EULAW Artikel 3 IKT-risikostyring

Artikel 3

IKT-risikostyring

Finansielle enheder udvikler, dokumenterer og gennemfører IKT-risikostyringspolitikker og -procedurer, som skal indeholde alle følgende:

a) 

en angivelse af godkendelsen af det risikotoleranceniveau for IKT-risiko, der er fastsat i overensstemmelse med artikel 6, stk. 8, litra b), i forordning (EU) 2022/2554

b) 

en procedure for og metode til gennemførelse af IKT-risikovurdering, der identificerer:

i) 

sårbarheder og trusler, der påvirker eller kan påvirke de understøttede forretningsfunktioner, IKT-systemer og IKT-aktiver, der understøtter disse funktioner

ii) 

de kvantitative eller kvalitative indikatorer til måling af indvirkningen af og sandsynligheden for de sårbarheder og trusler, der er omhandlet i nr. i)

c) 

proceduren for identifikation, gennemførelse og dokumentation af foranstaltninger til IKT-risikobehandling med henblik på de identificerede og vurderede IKT-risici, herunder fastlæggelse af de foranstaltninger til IKT-risikobehandling, der er nødvendige for, at IKT-risikoen holdes inden for det risikotoleranceniveau, der er omhandlet i litra a)

d) 

for de resterende IKT-risici, der stadig er til stede efter gennemførelsen af de foranstaltninger til IKT-risikobehandling, der er omhandlet i litra c):

i) 

bestemmelser om identifikation af disse resterende IKT-risici

ii) 

tildeling af roller og ansvarsområder vedrørende:

1) 

accepten af de resterende IKT-risici, der overskrider den finansielle enheds risikotoleranceniveau, jf. litra a),

2) 

den proces for gennemgang, der er omhandlet i dette litra d), nr. iv)

iii) 

udarbejdelse af en fortegnelse over de accepterede resterende IKT-risici, herunder en begrundelse for accepten heraf

iv) 

bestemmelser om gennemgangen af de accepterede resterende IKT-risici mindst én gang om året, herunder:

1) 

identifikation af eventuelle ændringer i de resterende IKT-risici

2) 

vurderingen af tilgængelige afbødende foranstaltninger

3) 

vurderingen af, om begrundelserne for accept af resterende IKT-risici stadig er gyldige og gældende på datoen for gennemgangen

e) 

bestemmelser om overvågning af:

i) 

eventuelle ændringer i IKT-risikoen og cybertrusselsbilledet

ii) 

interne og eksterne sårbarheder og trusler:

iii) 

den finansielle enheds IKT-risiko, der muliggør hurtig detektion af ændringer, der kan påvirke dens IKT-risikoprofil

f) 

bestemmelser om en proces, der skal sikre, at der tages hensyn til eventuelle ændringer af den finansielle enheds forretningsstrategi og strategi for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed.

Med henblik på stk. 1, litra c), skal den procedure, der er omhandlet i nævnte litra, sikre:

a) 

overvågning, om de gennemførte foranstaltninger til IKT-risikobehandling er effektive

b) 

vurdering af, om den finansielle enheds fastsatte risikotoleranceniveauer er nået

c) 

vurdering af, om den finansielle enhed har truffet foranstaltninger til at korrigere eller forbedre disse foranstaltninger, hvis det er nødvendigt.

EULAW Artikel 27 Format og indhold af rapporten om gennemgangen af rammen for IKT-risikostyring
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Forvaltning og organisation
-
EULAW Artikel 31 IKT-risikostyring
-
EULAW Artikel 6 Ramme for IKT-risikostyring
-
EULAW Artikel 11 Indsats og genopretning
-
EULAW Artikel 32 Behandlingssikkerhed
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 6 Ramme for IKT-risikostyring
-
EULAW Artikel 11 Indsats og genopretning
-
EULAW Artikel 32 Behandlingssikkerhed
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
EULAW Artikel 6 1

1.   Finansielle enheder indfører en robust, omfattende og veldokumenteret ramme for IKT-risikostyring som en del af deres samlede risikostyringssystem, der sætter dem i stand til at håndtere IKT-risikoen hurtigt, effektivt og fyldestgørende, og som sikrer et højt niveau af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed.

EULAW Artikel 6 2

2.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal som minimum omfatte strategier, politikker, procedurer, IKT-protokoller og -værktøjer, som er nødvendige for på behørig vis og i tilstrækkelig grad at beskytte alle informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver, herunder computersoftware, -hardware og servere, samt for at beskytte alle relevante fysiske komponenter og infrastrukturer, såsom lokaler, datacentre og sensitive udpegede områder, for at sikre tilstrækkelig beskyttelse af alle informationsaktiver og IKT-aktiver mod risici, herunder skade og uautoriseret adgang eller brug.

EULAW Artikel 6 3

3.   I overensstemmelse med deres ramme for IKT-risikostyring minimerer de finansielle enheder virkningerne af IKT-risiko ved at indføre passende strategier, politikker, procedurer, IKT-protokoller og -værktøjer. De forelægger fuldstændige og ajourførte oplysninger om IKT-risiko og om deres ramme for IKT-styring for de kompetente myndigheder på disses anmodning.

EULAW Artikel 6 4

4.   Finansielle enheder, som ikke er mikrovirksomheder, overdrager ansvaret for styring af og tilsyn med IKT-risikoen til en kontrolfunktion og sikrer, at denne kontrolfunktion har et passende uafhængighedsniveau, således at interessekonflikter undgås. Finansielle enheder sikrer en passende adskillelse og uafhængighed af IKT-risikostyringsfunktioner, kontrolfunktioner og interne revisionsfunktioner efter modellen med tre forsvarslinjer eller en intern model for risikostyring og kontrol.

EULAW Artikel 6 5

5.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal dokumenteres og gennemgås mindst én gang om året, eller regelmæssigt for så vidt angår mikrovirksomheder, samt når der forekommer større IKT-relaterede hændelser, og i henhold til tilsynsmæssige instrukser eller konklusioner, som er udledt af relevant test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed eller revisionsprocesser. Den skal forbedres løbende på grundlag af indhøstede gennemførelses- og overvågningserfaringer. Der skal forelægges en rapport om gennemgangen af rammen for IKT-risikostyring for den kompetente myndighed på dens anmodning.

EULAW Artikel 6 6

6.   Revisorer foretager regelmæssigt intern revision af rammen for IKT-risikostyring for andre finansielle enheder end mikrovirksomheder i overensstemmelse med de finansielle enheders revisionsplan. Disse revisorer skal besidde tilstrækkelig viden, faglig kompetence og ekspertise med hensyn til IKT-risici og være tilstrækkeligt uafhængige. Hyppigheden af IKT-revisioner og deres fokus skal stå i rimeligt forhold til den finansielle enheds IKT-risiko.

EULAW Artikel 6 7

7.   De finansielle enheder etablerer på baggrund af konklusioner fra den interne revisionsgennemgang en formel opfølgningsproces, herunder regler for rettidig efterprøvning og udbedring af kritiske resultater af IKT-revisioner.

EULAW Artikel 6 8

8.   Rammen for IKT-risikostyring skal omfatte en strategi for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed, der fastsætter, hvordan rammen gennemføres. Med henblik herpå skal strategien for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed omfatte metoderne til håndtering af IKT-risiko og opfylde specifikke IKT-mål ved at

a)

redegøre for, hvordan rammen for IKT-risikostyring understøtter den finansielle enheds forretningsstrategi og -mål

b)

fastlægge risikotoleranceniveauet for IKT-risiko i overensstemmelse med den finansielle enheds risikovillighed og analysere tolerancen over for virkninger af IKT-forstyrrelser

c)

fastsætte klare informationssikkerhedsmål, herunder centrale resultatindikatorer og centrale risikoparametre

d)

redegøre for IKT-referencearkitekturen og eventuelle ændringer, der er nødvendige for at nå specifikke forretningsmål

e)

beskrive de forskellige indførte mekanismer til detektion af IKT-relaterede hændelser, forebygge deres virkning og give beskyttelse mod den

f)

dokumentere den nuværende situation for den digitale operationelle modstandsdygtighed på grundlag af antallet af indberettede større IKT-relaterede hændelser og de forebyggende foranstaltningers effektivitet

g)

gennemføre test af digital operationel modstandsdygtighed i overensstemmelse med denne forordnings kapitel IV

h)

fastlægge en kommunikationsstrategi i tilfælde af IKT-relaterede hændelser, hvis offentliggørelse er påkrævet i henhold til artikel 14.

EULAW Artikel 6 9

9.   Finansielle enheder kan i forbindelse med strategien for digital operationel modstandsdygtighed som omhandlet i stk. 8 fastlægge en helhedsorienteret strategi med flere IKT-udbydere på koncern- eller enhedsplan, som viser, hvor der er stor afhængighed af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, og begrunde den pågældende udbudssammensætning af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester.

EULAW Artikel 6 10

10.   Finansielle enheder kan i overensstemmelse med sektorspecifik EU-ret og national ret outsource de opgaver, der er forbundet med efterprøvning af overholdelsen af kravene til IKT-risikostyring, til koncerninterne eller eksterne virksomheder. I tilfælde af en sådan outsourcing er den finansielle enhed fortsat fuldt ud ansvarlig for at efterprøve overholdelsen af kravene til IKT-risikostyring.

EULAW Artikel 11 6

6.   Som led i den omfattende IKT-risikostyring skal de finansielle enheder

a)

teste deres planer for IKT-driftsstabilitet og planer for IKT-indsats og -genopretning i forbindelse med IKT-systemer, der understøtter alle funktioner, mindst én gang om året og i tilfælde af væsentlige ændringer af IKT-systemer, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner

b)

teste de krisekommunikationsplaner, der er udarbejdet i henhold til artikel 14.

Med henblik på første afsnit, litra a), medtager finansielle enheder, som ikke er mikrovirksomheder, cyberangrebsscenarier og omstillingsscenarier mellem den primære IKT-infrastruktur og redundante kapacitet, sikkerhedskopier og de redundante faciliteter, der er nødvendige for at opfylde de i artikel 12 fastsatte forpligtelser, i testplanerne.

De finansielle enheder gennemgår regelmæssigt deres politik for IKT-driftsstabilitet og planer for IKT-indsats og -genopretning under hensyntagen til resultaterne af de test, der er gennemført i overensstemmelse med første afsnit, og henstillinger, der bygger på revisionskontrol eller tilsynsmæssige gennemgange.

Linkede sager

Sagslinks
Linktype Sag
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
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 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 Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
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 Govern
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.03B
blocks OIS-08.01AC
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.03B
blocks OIS-08.01AC
is blocked by RSK-02 Risk Management Program – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-09 Risk Management Strategy
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks RA-01 Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures
blocks PM-09 [P] Risk Management Strategy
blocks RA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures
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 GOVERN
blocks GV.RM Risk Management Strategy
blocks GV.RM-01 Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
blocks GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
blocks GV.RM-04 Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated
blocks GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
blocks GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
blocks GV.OV-02 The cybersecurity risk management strategy is reviewed and adjusted to ensure coverage of organizational requirements and risks
blocks GV.OV-03 Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
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 ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
blocks PR.IR Technology Infrastructure Resilience
  • 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.