+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. Übersicht

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 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Zugehörige Regulierungen

Regulierungen
EULAW Artikel 17 Qualitätsmanagementsystem
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Allgemeine Prinzipien
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Allgemeine Prinzipien
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
EULAW Artikel 28 (1)

Finanzunternehmen managen das IKT-Drittparteienrisiko als integralen Bestandteil des IKT-Risikos innerhalb ihres IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens nach Artikel 6 Absatz 1 und im Einklang mit den folgenden Prinzipien:

a) 

Finanzunternehmen, die vertragliche Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen für die Ausübung ihrer Geschäftstätigkeit getroffen haben, bleiben jederzeit in vollem Umfang für die Einhaltung und Erfüllung aller Verpflichtungen nach dieser Verordnung und nach dem anwendbaren Finanzdienstleistungsrecht verantwortlich.

b) 

Beim Management des IKT-Drittparteienrisikos tragen Finanzunternehmen dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit Rechnung, wobei Folgendes zu berücksichtigen ist:

i) 

die Art, das Ausmaß, die Komplexität und die Relevanz IKT-bezogener Abhängigkeiten,

ii) 

die Risiken infolge vertraglicher Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen, die mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern geschlossen wurden, wobei die Kritikalität oder Relevanz der jeweiligen Dienstleistungen, Prozesse oder Funktionen sowie die potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die Kontinuität und Verfügbarkeit von Finanzdienstleistungen und -tätigkeiten auf Einzel- und Gruppenebene zu berücksichtigen sind.
EULAW Artikel 28 (2)
Finanzinstitute, bei denen es sich weder um die in Artikel 16 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 1 genannten Unternehmen noch um Kleinstunternehmen handelt, beschließen im Rahmen ihres IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens eine Strategie für das IKT-Drittparteienrisiko und überprüfen diese regelmäßig, wobei gegebenenfalls die in Artikel 6 Absatz 9 genannte Strategie zur Nutzung mehrerer Anbieter Berücksichtigung findet. Die Strategie zum IKT-Drittparteienrisiko umfasst eine Leitlinie für die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen, die von IKT-Drittdienstleistern bereitgestellt werden, und gilt auf individueller und gegebenenfalls teilkonsolidierter und konsolidierter Basis. Das Leitungsorgan überprüft auf der Grundlage einer Bewertung des Gesamtrisikoprofils des Finanzunternehmens und des Umfangs und der Komplexität der Unternehmensdienstleistungen regelmäßig Risiken, die im Zusammenhang mit den vertraglichen Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen ermittelt werden.
EULAW Artikel 28 (3)
Finanzunternehmen führen und aktualisieren im Rahmen ihres IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens auf Unternehmensebene sowie auf teilkonsolidierter und konsolidierter Ebene ein Informationsregister, das sich auf alle vertraglichen Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von durch IKT-Drittdienstleister bereitgestellten IKT-Dienstleistungen bezieht.

Die vertraglichen Vereinbarungen gemäß Unterabsatz 1 werden angemessen dokumentiert, wobei zwischen Vereinbarungen, die IKT-Dienstleistungen zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen abdecken, und solchen unterschieden wird, bei denen dies nicht der Fall ist.

Finanzunternehmen erstatten den zuständigen Behörden mindestens einmal jährlich Bericht zur Anzahl neuer Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen, den Kategorien von IKT-Drittdienstleistern, der Art der vertraglichen Vereinbarungen sowie den bereitgestellten IKT-Dienstleistungen und -Funktionen.

Finanzunternehmen stellen der zuständigen Behörde auf Verlangen das vollständige Informationsregister oder auf Anfrage bestimmte Teile dieses Registers zusammen mit allen Informationen zur Verfügung, die für eine wirksame Beaufsichtigung des Finanzunternehmens als notwendig erachtet werden.

Finanzunternehmen unterrichten die zuständige Behörde zeitnah über jede geplante vertragliche Vereinbarung über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen zur Unterstützung kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen sowie in dem Fall, dass eine Funktion kritisch oder wichtig geworden ist.
EULAW Artikel 28 (4)

Vor Abschluss einer vertraglichen Vereinbarung über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen müssen Finanzunternehmen:

a) 

beurteilen, ob sich die vertragliche Vereinbarung auf die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen zur Unterstützung einer kritischen oder wichtigen Funktion bezieht;

b) 

beurteilen, ob die aufsichtsrechtlichen Bedingungen für die Auftragsvergabe erfüllt sind;

c) 

alle relevanten Risiken im Zusammenhang mit der vertraglichen Vereinbarung ermitteln und bewerten, einschließlich der Möglichkeit, dass diese vertragliche Vereinbarung dazu beitragen kann, das in Artikel 29 genannte IKT-Konzentrationsrisiko zu erhöhen;

d) 

bei potenziellen IKT-Drittdienstleistern der gebotenen Sorgfaltspflicht nachkommen und während des gesamten Auswahl- und Bewertungsprozesses sicherstellen, dass der IKT-Drittdienstleister geeignet ist;

e) 

Interessenkonflikte, die durch die vertragliche Vereinbarung entstehen können, ermitteln und bewerten.
EULAW Artikel 28 (5)
Finanzunternehmen dürfen vertragliche Vereinbarungen nur mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern schließen, die angemessene Standards für Informationssicherheit einhalten. Betreffen diese vertraglichen Vereinbarungen kritische oder wichtige Funktionen, so berücksichtigen die Finanzunternehmen vor Abschluss der Vereinbarungen angemessen, ob die IKT-Drittdienstleister die aktuellsten und höchsten Qualitätsstandards für die Informationssicherheit anwenden.
EULAW Artikel 28 (6)
Bei der Ausübung der Zugangs-, Inspektions- und Auditrechte in Bezug auf den IKT-Drittdienstleister bestimmen Finanzunternehmen auf der Grundlage eines risikobasierten Ansatzes vorab die Häufigkeit von Audits und Inspektionen sowie die zu prüfenden Bereiche, indem allgemein anerkannte Auditstandards im Einklang mit etwaigen Aufsichtsanweisungen für die Anwendung und Einbeziehung solcher Auditstandards eingehalten werden.

Wenn vertragliche Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen, die mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern geschlossen werden, ein hohes Maß an technischer Komplexität mit sich bringen, überprüft das Finanzunternehmen, dass die internen oder externen Revisoren oder ein Revisorenpool über die Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse verfügen bzw. verfügt, die für die wirksame Durchführung der einschlägigen Audits und Bewertungen erforderlich sind.
EULAW Artikel 28 (7)

Finanzunternehmen stellen sicher, dass vertragliche Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen gekündigt werden können, wenn einer der folgenden Umstände vorliegt:

a) 

ein erheblicher Verstoß des IKT-Drittdienstleisters gegen geltende Gesetze, sonstige Vorschriften oder Vertragsbedingungen;

b) 

Umstände, die im Laufe der Überwachung des IKT-Drittparteienrisikos festgestellt wurden und die als geeignet eingeschätzt werden, die Wahrnehmung der im Rahmen der vertraglichen Vereinbarung vorgesehenen Funktionen zu beeinträchtigen, einschließlich wesentlicher Änderungen, die sich auf die Vereinbarung oder die Verhältnisse des IKT-Drittdienstleisters auswirken;

c) 

nachweisliche Schwächen des IKT-Drittdienstleisters in Bezug auf sein allgemeines IKT-Risikomanagement und insbesondere bei der Art und Weise, in der er die Verfügbarkeit, Authentizität, Sicherheit und Vertraulichkeit von Daten gewährleistet, unabhängig davon, ob es sich um personenbezogene oder anderweitig sensible Daten oder nicht personenbezogene Daten handelt;

d) 

die zuständige Behörde kann das Finanzunternehmen infolge der Bedingungen der jeweiligen vertraglichen Vereinbarung oder der mit dieser Vereinbarung verbundenen Umstände nicht mehr wirksam beaufsichtigen.
EULAW Artikel 28 (8)
Für IKT-Dienstleistungen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen, richten Finanzunternehmen Ausstiegsstrategien ein. In den Ausstiegsstrategien wird den Risiken Rechnung getragen, die auf der Ebene der IKT-Drittdienstleister entstehen können, darunter insbesondere ein möglicher Fehler des IKT-Drittdienstleisters, eine Verschlechterung der Qualität der bereitgestellten IKT-Dienstleistungen, jede Unterbrechung der Geschäftstätigkeit aufgrund unangemessener oder unterlassener Bereitstellung von IKT-Dienstleistungen oder jedes erhebliche Risiko im Zusammenhang mit der angemessenen und kontinuierlichen Bereitstellung der jeweiligen IKT-Dienstleistungen oder der Beendigung vertraglicher Vereinbarungen mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern unter einem der in Absatz 7 genannten Umstände.

Finanzunternehmen stellen sicher, dass sie aus vertraglichen Vereinbarungen ausscheiden können, ohne:

a) 

Unterbrechung ihrer Geschäftstätigkeit,

b) 

Einschränkung der Einhaltung regulatorischer Anforderungen,

c) 

Beeinträchtigung der Kontinuität und Qualität ihrer für Kunden erbrachten Dienstleistungen.

Ausstiegspläne müssen umfassend, dokumentiert und im Einklang mit den in Artikel 4 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Kriterien ausreichend getestet sein sowie regelmäßig überprüft werden.

Finanzunternehmen ermitteln alternative Lösungen und entwickeln Übergangspläne, die es ihnen ermöglichen, dem IKT-Drittdienstleister die vertraglich vereinbarten IKT-Dienstleistungen und die relevanten Daten zu entziehen und sie sicher und vollständig alternativen Anbietern zu übertragen oder wieder in die eigenen Systeme zu überführen.

Finanzunternehmen verfügen über angemessene Notfallmaßnahmen, um die Fortführung der Geschäftstätigkeit zu gewährleisten, falls die in Unterabsatz 1 genannten Umstände auftreten.

Verknüpfte Vorgänge

Verknüpfungen
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.