+Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation
---+Periodic Review & Update of Security, Compliance & Resilience Program
---+Exception Management
---+Periodic Review of Exceptions
|
Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
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)
∙ Shared drive or intranet for policy distribution (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint Online)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ Document management system (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence, Notion)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Document management / intranet portal (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence)
∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., KnowBe4, Absorb LMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Policy management platform
∙ Version-controlled policy repository with access controls
∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise policy management platform
∙ Integrated GRC policy module with automated review workflows
∙ Enterprise-wide policy acknowledgement and training integration
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.
▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization.
▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards.
▪ 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).
▪ People affected by documentation changes are provided notification of the policy and standard changes.
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).
▪ The organization's cybersecurity policies and standards are made available to internal personnel.
▪ Documented procedures exist for requesting a deviation from approved standards.
▪ The responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation is assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians.
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 establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
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
| Bezeichnung |
Standard |
|
Periodic Review & Update of Security, Compliance & Resilience Program
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to review the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP), including policies, standards and procedures, at planned intervals or if significant changes occur to ensure their continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual human reviews of policies and procedures
∙ Documentation change control (version history in document)
∙ Calendar reminders for review cycles
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual human reviews with documented review log
∙ Documentation change control with version history
∙ Defined policy review and approval process
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Documented review cycle (minimum annual) with ownership assignment
∙ Change control process with approval workflows
∙ Document management system with review reminders (e.g., SharePoint, PolicyTech)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formalized policy lifecycle management (create, review, retire)
∙ Automated review reminders via policy management platform
∙ GRC-integrated documentation change control
∙ Triggered reviews for significant regulatory or organizational changes
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise policy lifecycle management integrated with GRC platform
∙ Automated review workflows with escalation paths
∙ Regulatory change monitoring integrated with policy review triggers
∙ Audit-ready documentation of all policy changes and approvals
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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel perform an annual documentation review process that includes the scope of applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.
▪ Recommendations for documentation edits are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with documentation change control processes.
▪ Updated documentation versions are published, based on no less than an annual review cycle.
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 review the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP), including policies, standards and procedures, at planned intervals or if significant changes occur to ensure their continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
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.
|
|
Exception Management
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Manual exception management process
∙ Documented exception request form (Word/PDF template)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Manual exception management process
∙ Formalized exception request and approval workflow
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Documented exception management process with approval authority matrix
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Risk acceptance tracking with time-bound exceptions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal exception management program with defined risk acceptance criteria
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Time-limited exceptions with mandatory compensating controls
∙ Periodic exception review and recertification process
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise exception management program integrated with GRC platform
∙ Automated exception workflows with defined approval chains
∙ Exception-to-risk register linkage with ongoing monitoring
∙ Audit-ready exception documentation and closure tracking
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.
▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy governance practices are informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
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
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 prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
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.
|
|
Periodic Review of Exceptions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to:
(1) Periodically review previously-approved exceptions; and
(2) Determine if the exception should be allowed to continue based on evolving risks and threats.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Manual annual review of the exception log
∙ Documented exception request form with expiration date
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual exception review with documented continue/close decision
∙ Exception register (spreadsheet or GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.))
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Time-bound exceptions with mandatory recertification
∙ Exception review tied to the risk register
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Time-limited exceptions with automated recertification reminders
∙ Exception review and recertification process owned by the risk function
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise exception management program integrated with GRC platform
∙ Automated exception expiration and recertification workflows
∙ Exception-to-risk register linkage with ongoing monitoring
∙ Audit-ready exception review records
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
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel perform internal assessments of cybersecurity and data protection controls to determine compliance status.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit/assessment activities on business operations.
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
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).
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
| Quelle |
Anforderung |
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Regulierungen
| Quelle |
Regulierung |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 5 (2)
Das Leitungsorgan des Finanzunternehmens definiert, genehmigt, überwacht und verantwortet die Umsetzung aller Vorkehrungen im Zusammenhang mit dem IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen nach Artikel 6 Absatz 1. Für die Zwecke von Unterabsatz 1 gilt Folgendes:
a)
Das Leitungsorgan trägt die letztendliche Verantwortung für das Management der IKT-Risiken des Finanzunternehmens;
b)
das Leitungsorgan führt Leitlinien ein, die darauf abzielen, hohe Standards in Bezug auf die Verfügbarkeit, Authentizität, Integrität und Vertraulichkeit von Daten aufrechtzuerhalten;
c)
das Leitungsorgan legt klare Aufgaben und Verantwortlichkeiten für alle IKT-bezogenen Funktionen sowie angemessene Governance-Regelungen fest, um eine wirksame und rechtzeitige Kommunikation, Zusammenarbeit und Koordinierung zwischen diesen Funktionen zu gewährleisten;
d)
das Leitungsorgan trägt die Gesamtverantwortung für die Festlegung und Genehmigung der Strategie für die digitale operationale Resilienz gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 8, einschließlich der Festlegung der angemessenen Toleranzschwelle für das IKT-Risiko des Finanzunternehmens gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 8 Buchstabe b;
e)
das Leitungsorgan genehmigt, überwacht und überprüft regelmäßig die Umsetzung der in Artikel 11 Absatz 1 genannten IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie und der in Artikel 11 Absatz 3 genannten IKT-Reaktions- und Wiederherstellungspläne, die als eigenständige spezielle Leitlinie, die integraler Bestandteil der allgemeinen Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie des Finanzunternehmens und seines Reaktions- und Wiederherstellungsplans ist, verabschiedet werden können;
f)
das Leitungsorgan genehmigt und überprüft regelmäßig die internen IKT-Revisionspläne des Finanzunternehmens, die IKT-Revision und die daran vorgenommenen wesentlichen Änderungen;
g)
das Leitungsorgan weist angemessene Budgetmittel zu und überprüft diese regelmäßig, um den Anforderungen des Finanzunternehmens an die digitale operationale Resilienz in Bezug auf alle Arten von Ressourcen gerecht zu werden, einschließlich einschlägiger Programme zur Sensibilisierung für IKT-Sicherheit und Schulungen zur digitalen operationalen Resilienz nach Artikel 13 Absatz 6 sowie IKT-Kompetenzen für alle Mitarbeiter;
h)
das Leitungsorgan genehmigt und überprüft regelmäßig die Leitlinie des Finanzunternehmens in Bezug auf Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen, die von IKT-Drittdienstleistern bereitgestellt werden;
i)
das Leitungsorgan richtet auf Unternehmensebene Meldekanäle ein, die es ihm ermöglichen, ordnungsgemäß über Folgendes informiert zu werden:
i)
mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern geschlossene Vereinbarungen über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen,
ii)
alle relevanten geplanten wesentlichen Änderungen in Bezug auf die IKT-Drittdienstleister,
iii)
die potenziellen Auswirkungen derartiger Änderungen auf die kritischen oder wichtigen Funktionen, die Gegenstand dieser Vereinbarungen sind, einschließlich einer Zusammenfassung der Risikoanalyse, um die Auswirkungen dieser Änderungen zu bewerten, und zumindest über schwerwiegende IKT-bezogene Vorfälle und deren Auswirkungen sowie über Gegen-, Wiederherstellungs- und Korrekturmaßnahmen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 5 (3)
Finanzunternehmen, bei denen es sich nicht um Kleinstunternehmen handelt, richten eine Funktion ein, um die mit IKT-Drittdienstleistern über die Nutzung von IKT-Dienstleistungen geschlossenen Vereinbarungen zu überwachen, oder benennen ein Mitglied der Geschäftsleitung, das für die Überwachung der damit verbundenen Risikoexposition und die einschlägige Dokumentation verantwortlich ist.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 2 Allgemeine Elemente der Richtlinien, Verfahren, Protokolle und Tools für IKT-Sicherheit
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 2 Allgemeine Elemente der Richtlinien, Verfahren, Protokolle und Tools für IKT-Sicherheit
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 2 Allgemeine Elemente der Richtlinien, Verfahren, Protokolle und Tools für IKT-Sicherheit
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 2 Allgemeine Elemente der Richtlinien, Verfahren, Protokolle und Tools für IKT-Sicherheit
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 28 Governance und Organisation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 29 Informationssicherheitsleitlinien und -maßnahmen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 29 Informationssicherheitsleitlinien und -maßnahmen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 6 IKT-Risikomanagementrahmen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 9 Schutz und Prävention
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Verantwortung des für die Verarbeitung Verantwortlichen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
|
|
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.
|
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
Verknüpfungen
| Verknüpfungstyp |
Vorgang |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
People |
|
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
|
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
|
Process |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.01B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.03B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.03B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
SP-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
HR-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
AM-05.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-10.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-19.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-27.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-30.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-32.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-34.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-08.04B |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-03.01B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-14.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
INQ-04.03B |
|
is blocked by
|
GOV-04 Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PM-01 Information Security Program Plan |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PT-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PT-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
03.15.01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
GV.PO Policy |
|
blocks
|
GV.PO-01 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated … |
|
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
|
ID.RA Risk Assessment |
- 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.
|