+Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
---+Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Vendor due diligence checklist ∙ Third-party security questionnaire (e.g., CAIQ, SIG)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vendor security questionnaire (CAIQ or SIG) ∙ Third-party risk assessment prior to outsourcing
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Third-party risk management program ∙ Vendor security assessments with contractual security obligations ∙ Contract security requirements for outsourced functions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Third-party risk management (TPRM) program ∙ Vendor SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification requirements ∙ Contractual security and compliance obligations
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise TPRM program with automated vendor risk assessment ∙ Third-party risk ratings (e.g., BitSight, SecurityScorecard) ∙ Contractual oversight and audit rights for outsourced functions
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
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 ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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. Oversigt
| Titel |
Standard |
|
Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify non-core IT functions suitable for outsourcing (e.g., email hosting)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented list of outsourced non-essential functions with security requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Outsourcing decisions aligned with business strategy and risk assessment ∙ Security requirements in outsourcing contracts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Sourcing strategy identifying outsourceable non-essential functions ∙ Third-party risk assessment before outsourcing ∙ Contractual security requirements
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sourcing governance aligned with business strategy and C-SCRM ∙ Outsourcing risk assessments and regulatory notifications where required
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
Level 3 Well Defined
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 non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
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
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
|
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 29 2
2. Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, omfatter muligheden for, at en tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester giver IKT-tjenester, der understøtter en kritisk eller vigtig funktion, videre i underentreprise til andre tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester, afvejer de finansielle enheder de fordele og risici, der kan opstå i forbindelse med en sådan underentreprise, navnlig hvis der er tale om en IKT-underleverandør med hjemsted i et tredjeland.
Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger vedrører IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, tager de finansielle enheder behørigt hensyn til de bestemmelser i insolvensretten, som finder anvendelse, hvis tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester går konkurs, samt eventuelle begrænsninger, der kan opstå i forbindelse med en hastende genopretning af den finansielle enheds data.
Hvis der er indgået kontraktlige ordninger for brug af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, med en tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester med hjemsted i et tredjeland, tager de finansielle enheder ud over til de i andet afsnit omhandlede forhold også hensyn til overholdelsen af Unionens databeskyttelsesregler og en effektiv håndhævelse af retten i det pågældende tredjeland.
Hvis de kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, indeholder bestemmelser om underentreprise, vurderer de finansielle enheder, hvorvidt og hvordan potentielt lange eller komplekse underentreprisekæder kan påvirke deres evne til fuldt ud at overvåge de udliciterede funktioner og den kompetente myndigheds evne til i denne henseende at føre effektivt tilsyn med den finansielle enhed.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 1
1. Rettigheder og forpligtelser for den finansielle enhed og for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester skal fordeles klart og fastlægges skriftligt. Den samlede kontrakt skal omfatte serviceniveauaftaler og dokumenteres i ét skriftligt dokument, som parterne skal have adgang til på papir, eller i et dokument i et andet varigt og tilgængeligt format, som kan downloades.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 2
2. De kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester skal mindst omfatte følgende elementer:
|
a)
|
en klar og fuldstændig beskrivelse af alle funktioner og IKT-tjenester, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester skal levere, med angivelse af, om underentreprise af en IKT-tjeneste, der understøtter en kritisk eller vigtig funktion eller væsentlige dele heraf er tilladt, og, hvis det er tilfældet, de betingelser, der gælder for en sådan underentreprise
|
|
b)
|
de steder, navnlig de regioner eller lande, hvor de udliciterede funktioner og IKT-tjenester eller funktionerne og IKT-tjenesterne i underentreprise skal leveres, og hvor data skal behandles, herunder lagringsstedet, og kravet om, at tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester på forhånd skal underrette den finansielle enhed, hvis den har planer om at ændre disse steder
|
|
c)
|
bestemmelser om tilgængelighed, autenticitet, integritet og fortrolighed med hensyn til databeskyttelse, herunder personoplysninger
|
|
d)
|
bestemmelser om sikring af adgang, genopretning og tilbagesendelse i et lettilgængeligt format af personoplysninger og andre data end personoplysninger, der behandles af den finansielle enhed, i tilfælde af insolvens, afvikling eller afbrydelse af de forretningsaktiviteter, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester varetager, eller i tilfælde af opsigelse af de kontraktlige ordninger
|
|
e)
|
beskrivelser af serviceniveauet, herunder ajourføringer og revisioner heraf
|
|
f)
|
forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at yde bistand til den finansielle enhed uden yderligere omkostninger eller til en omkostning, der fastsættes på forhånd, hvis der opstår en IKT-hændelse, der vedrører den IKT-tjeneste, som leveres til den finansielle enhed
|
|
g)
|
forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at samarbejde fuldt ud med den finansielle enheds kompetente myndigheder og afviklingsmyndigheder, herunder personer, som de har udpeget
|
|
h)
|
opsigelsesrettigheder og dertil knyttet minimumsfrister for opsigelse af de kontraktlige ordninger i overensstemmelse med de kompetente myndigheders og afviklingsmyndighedernes forventninger
|
|
i)
|
betingelserne for deltagelse af tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester i de finansielle enheders programmer til bevidstgørelse om IKT-sikkerhed og kurser i digital operationel modstandsdygtighed, jf. artikel 13, stk. 6.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 3
3. De kontraktlige ordninger for brugen af IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner, skal ud over de elementer, der er omhandlet i stk. 2, mindst omfatte følgende:
|
a)
|
en fuldstændig beskrivelse af serviceniveauer, herunder ajourføringer og revisioner heraf, med præcise kvantitative og kvalitative præstationsmål inden for de aftalte serviceniveauer, således at den finansielle enhed kan foretage en effektiv overvågning af IKT-tjenester, og således at der uden unødigt ophold kan træffes passende afhjælpende foranstaltninger, når de aftalte serviceniveauer ikke overholdes
|
|
b)
|
opsigelsesfrister og indberetningsforpligtelser for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester over for den finansielle enhed, herunder underretning om enhver udvikling, som kan have væsentlig indvirkning på, hvorvidt tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester har evnen til effektivt at levere IKT-tjenester, der understøtter kritiske eller vigtige funktioner i overensstemmelse med de aftalte serviceniveauer
|
|
c)
|
krav til tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester om at gennemføre og teste beredskabsplaner og indføre IKT-sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, -værktøjer og -politikker, som giver et passende niveau af sikkerhed for, at den finansielle enhed kan foretage levering af tjenester i overensstemmelse med dens reguleringsramme
|
|
d)
|
forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til at deltage i og fuldt ud samarbejde om den finansielle enheds TLPT som omhandlet i artikel 26 og 27
|
|
e)
|
retten til løbende at overvåge det præstationsniveau, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester leverer, hvilket indebærer følgende:
|
i)
|
den finansielle enheds eller en udpeget tredjeparts og den kompetente myndigheds uindskrænkede ret til adgang, inspektion og revision og ret til at tage kopier af relevant dokumentation på stedet, hvis denne har afgørende betydning for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenesters operationer, hvis faktiske udøvelse ikke hindres eller begrænses af andre kontraktlige ordninger eller gennemførelsespolitikker
|
|
ii)
|
retten til at nå til enighed om alternative sikkerhedsniveauer, hvis andre kunders rettigheder påvirkes
|
|
iii)
|
forpligtelsen for tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester til fuldt ud at samarbejde under de inspektioner og revisioner på stedet, som de kompetente myndigheder, den ledende tilsynsførende, den finansielle enhed eller en udpeget tredjepart udfører, og
|
|
iv)
|
forpligtelsen til at give nærmere oplysninger om omfanget af, de procedurer, som skal følges, og hyppigheden af sådanne inspektioner og revisioner
|
|
|
f)
|
exitstrategier, navnlig indførelse af en obligatorisk passende overgangsperiode:
|
i)
|
i løbet af hvilken tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester fortsat leverer de respektive funktioner eller IKT-tjenester med henblik på at mindske risikoen for forstyrrelser i den finansielle enhed eller sikre en effektiv afvikling eller omstrukturering heraf
|
|
ii)
|
som giver den finansielle enhed mulighed for at migrere til en anden tredjepartsudbyder af IKT-tjenester eller skifte til interne løsninger, der stemmer overens med den leverede tjenestes kompleksitet.
|
|
Uanset litra e) kan tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester og den finansielle enhed, som er en mikrovirksomhed, beslutte, at den finansielle enheds ret til adgang, inspektion og revision kan delegeres til en uafhængig tredjepart, som udpeges af tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester, og at den finansielle enhed til enhver tid kan anmode tredjeparten om oplysninger og garantier vedrørende de resultater, som tredjepartsudbyderen af IKT-tjenester opnår.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 4
4. Når finansielle enheder og tredjepartsudbydere af IKT-tjenester forhandler om kontraktlige ordninger, overvejer de anvendelsen af standardkontraktbestemmelser, som de offentlige myndigheder har udviklet til specifikke tjenester.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Foranstaltninger til styring af cybersikkerhedsrisici
-
|
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
|
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
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
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
|
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 = 07 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
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
|
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
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
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
|
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
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
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
|
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 |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-05 Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations – Assessment Procedure |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|