+Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)

Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures).
▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system.
▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Zugehörige Regulierungen

Regulierungen
EULAW Artikel 6 (2)
Der IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen umfasst mindestens Strategien, Leit- und Richtlinien, Verfahren sowie IKT-Protokolle und -Tools, die erforderlich sind, um alle Informations- und IKT-Assets, einschließlich Computer-Software, Hardware und Server, ordnungsgemäß und angemessen zu schützen sowie um alle relevanten physischen Komponenten und Infrastrukturen, wie etwa Räumlichkeiten, Rechenzentren und ausgewiesene sensible Bereiche zu schützen, damit der angemessene Schutz aller Informations- und IKT-Assets vor Risiken, einschließlich der Beschädigung und des unbefugten Zugriffs oder der unbefugten Nutzung, gewährleistet ist.
EULAW Artikel 9 (4)

Als Teil des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens nach Artikel 6 Absatz 1 gilt für Finanzunternehmen Folgendes:

a) 

Sie erarbeiten und dokumentieren eine Informationssicherheitsleitlinie, in der Regeln zum Schutz der Verfügbarkeit, Authentizität, Integrität und Vertraulichkeit von Daten und der Informations- und IKT-Assets, gegebenenfalls einschließlich derjenigen ihrer Kunden, festgelegt sind;

b) 

sie richten entsprechend einem risikobasierten Ansatz eine solide Struktur für Netzwerk- und Infrastrukturmanagement unter Verwendung angemessener Techniken, Methoden und Protokolle ein, wozu auch die Umsetzung automatisierter Mechanismen zur Isolierung betroffener Informationsassets im Falle von Cyberangriffen gehören kann;

c) 

sie implementieren Richtlinien, die den physischen oder logischen Zugang zu Informations- und IKT-Assets ausschließlich auf den Umfang beschränken, der für rechtmäßige und zulässige Funktionen und Tätigkeiten erforderlich ist, und legen zu diesem Zweck eine Reihe von Konzepten, Verfahren und Kontrollen fest, die auf Zugangs- und Zugriffsrechte gerichtet sind, und gewährleisten deren gründliche Verwaltung;

d) 

sie implementieren Konzepte und Protokolle für starke Authentifizierungsmechanismen, die auf einschlägigen Normen und speziellen Kontrollsystemen basieren, sowie Schutzmaßnahmen für kryptografische Schlüssel, wobei Daten auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse aus genehmigten Datenklassifizierungs- und IKT-Risikobewertungsprozessen verschlüsselt werden;

e) 

sie implementieren und dokumentieren Richtlinien, Verfahren und Kontrollen für das IKT-Änderungsmanagement, einschließlich Änderungen an Software, Hardware, Firmware-Komponenten, den Systemen oder von Sicherheitsparametern, die auf einem Risikobewertungsansatz basieren und fester Bestandteil des gesamten Änderungsmanagementprozesses des Finanzunternehmens sind, um sicherzustellen, dass alle Änderungen an IKT-Systemen auf kontrollierte Weise erfasst, getestet, bewertet, genehmigt, implementiert und überprüft werden;

f) 

sie besitzen angemessene und umfassende dokumentierte Richtlinien für Patches und Updates.

Für die Zwecke von Unterabsatz 1 Buchstabe b konzipieren Finanzunternehmen die Infrastruktur für die Netzanbindung und Netzwerkverbindung so, dass sie sofort getrennt oder segmentiert werden kann, damit eine Ansteckung, insbesondere bei miteinander verbundenen Finanzprozessen, minimiert und verhindert wird.

Für die Zwecke von Unterabsatz 1 Buchstabe e wird das Verfahren für das IKT-Änderungsmanagement von zuständigen Leitungsebenen genehmigt und hat spezifische Protokolle.
EULAW Artikel 24 Verantwortung des für die Verarbeitung Verantwortlichen
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
EULAW Artikel 17 Qualitätsmanagementsystem
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Governance und Organisation
-
EULAW Artikel 5 Governance und Organisation
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Schutz und Prävention
-
EULAW Artikel 16 Vereinfachter IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen
-
EULAW Artikel 5 (1)
Finanzunternehmen verfügen über einen internen Governance- und Kontrollrahmen, der im Einklang mit Artikel 6 Absatz 4 ein wirksames und umsichtiges Management von IKT-Risiken gewährleistet, um ein hohes Niveau an digitaler operationaler Resilienz zu erreichen.
EULAW Artikel 16 (1)
Artikel 5 bis 15 gelten nicht für kleine und nicht verflochtene Wertpapierfirmen, entsprechend der Richtlinie (EU) 2015/2366 ausgenommene Zahlungsinstitute, entsprechend der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU ausgenommene Institute, für die die Mitgliedstaaten beschlossen haben, nicht von der in Artikel 2 Absatz 4 der vorliegenden Verordnung genannten Möglichkeit Gebrauch zu machen, nach der Richtlinie 2009/110/EG ausgenommene E-Geld-Institute und kleine Einrichtungen der betrieblichen Altersversorgung.

Unbeschadet des Unterabsatzes 1 müssen die in Unterabsatz 1 genannten Stellen

a) 

einen soliden und dokumentierten IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen errichten und aufrechterhalten, in dem die Mechanismen und Maßnahmen für ein rasches, effizientes und umfassendes Management des IKT-Risikos, einschließlich des Schutzes der einschlägigen physischen Komponenten und Infrastrukturen, detailliert sind;

b) 

die Sicherheit und das Funktionieren aller IKT-Systeme fortlaufend überwachen;

c) 

die Auswirkungen von IKT-Risiken minimieren, indem solide, resiliente und aktualisierte IKT-Systeme, -Protokolle und -Tools, die zur Unterstützung der Durchführung ihrer Tätigkeiten und zur Bereitstellung von Diensten angemessen sind, verwendet werden, und in angemessener Weise die Verfügbarkeit, Authentizität, Integrität und Vertraulichkeit von Daten in den Netzwerk- und Informationssystemen schützen;

d) 

eine rasche Ermittlung und Aufdeckung der Ursachen von IKT-Risiken und -Anomalien in den Netzwerk- und Informationssystemen sowie eine rasche Handhabung von IKT-Vorfällen ermöglichen;

e) 

die wesentlichen Abhängigkeiten von IKT-Drittdienstleistern ermitteln;

f) 

die Kontinuität kritischer oder wichtiger Funktionen durch Geschäftsfortführungspläne sowie Gegen- und Wiederherstellungsmaßnahmen, die zumindest Sicherungs- und Wiedergewinnungsmaßnahmen umfassen, gewährleisten;

g) 

die unter Buchstabe f genannten Pläne und Maßnahmen sowie die Wirksamkeit der gemäß den Buchstaben a und c durchgeführten Kontrollen regelmäßig testen;

h) 

gegebenenfalls die relevanten operativen Schlussfolgerungen, die sich aus den Tests gemäß Buchstabe g und der Analyse nach einem Vorfall ergeben, in den IKT-Risikobewertungsprozess einbeziehen und entsprechend dem Bedarf und dem IKT-Risikoprofil Programme zur Sensibilisierung für IKT-Sicherheit sowie Schulungen zur digitalen operationalen Resilienz für Personal und Management entwickeln.
EULAW Artikel 16 (2)
Der in Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2 Buchstabe a genannte IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen wird regelmäßig und bei Auftreten schwerwiegender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle entsprechend den aufsichtsrechtlichen Anweisungen dokumentiert und überprüft. Der Rahmen wird auf der Grundlage der bei Umsetzung und Überwachung gewonnenen Erkenntnisse kontinuierlich verbessert. Der zuständigen Behörde wird auf Anfrage ein Bericht über die Überprüfung des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens vorgelegt.
EULAW Artikel 95 Management operationeller und sicherheitsrelevanter Risiken
-
EULAW Artikel 97 Authentifizierung
-

Verknüpfte Vorgänge

Verknüpfungen
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Govern
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
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 Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
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 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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-01.01B
blocks OIS-01.02B
is blocked by GOV-02 Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-01 Information Security Program Plan
blocks 03.15.01 Policy and Procedures
blocks GV GOVERN
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.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
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-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
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.