+Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
---+Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
---+Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 |
|
Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external parties responsible for related plans.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external elements responsible for related plans.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
|
Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A dedicated alternate site(s) is/are equipped to be compatible with the production network's processing, storage, connectivity and other infrastructure needs.
▪ Alternate sites are given priority of service to meet applicable RTOs and/or RPOs.
▪ RTOs are used to identify business-critical TAASD, which are given priority of service in alternate processing and storage sites.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ 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 BCD 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 test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
1.1 Referenzen
1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen
1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen
2. Identifizierte Anforderungen
Anforderungen
| Quelle |
Anforderung |
3. Zugehörige Regulierungen
Regulierungen
| Quelle |
Regulierung |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenten der IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenten der IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 25 Test des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 25 Test des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 25 Test des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 25 Test des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 25 Test des IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsplans
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 27 Format und Inhalt des Berichts über die Überprüfung des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 40 Testen der Geschäftsfortführungspläne
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 40 Testen der Geschäftsfortführungspläne
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 40 Testen der Geschäftsfortführungspläne
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 Reaktion und Wiederherstellung
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Allgemeine Anforderungen für das Testen der digitalen operationalen Resilienz
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 (4)
Finanzunternehmen erstellen, pflegen und testen regelmäßig angemessene IKT-Geschäftsfortführungspläne, insbesondere in Bezug auf kritische oder wichtige Funktionen, die ausgelagert oder durch vertragliche Vereinbarungen an IKT-Drittdienstleister vergeben werden.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 (6)
Im Rahmen ihres umfassenden IKT-Risikomanagements gilt für Finanzunternehmen Folgendes:
a)
sie testen bei IKT-Systemen, die alle Funktionen unterstützen, mindestens jährlich sowie im Falle jeglicher wesentlicher Änderungen an IKT-Systemen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen, die IKT-Geschäftsfortführungspläne sowie die IKT-Reaktions- und Wiederherstellungspläne;
b)
sie testen die gemäß Artikel 14 erstellten Krisenkommunikationspläne.
Finanzunternehmen, bei denen es sich nicht um Kleinstunternehmen handelt, nehmen für die Zwecke von Unterabsatz 1 Buchstabe a Szenarien für Cyberangriffe und Umstellungen von der primären IKT-Infrastruktur auf die redundanten Kapazitäten, Backups und Systeme, die für die Erfüllung der Verpflichtungen nach Artikel 12 erforderlich sind, in ihre Testpläne auf. Finanzunternehmen überprüfen ihre IKT-Geschäftsfortführungsleitlinie und ihre IKT-Reaktions- und Wiederherstellungspläne regelmäßig und berücksichtigen dabei die Ergebnisse von Tests, die gemäß Unterabsatz 1 durchgeführt wurden, sowie die Empfehlungen, die sich aus Audits oder aufsichtlichen Überprüfungen ergeben.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (1)
Um die Vorbereitung auf die Handhabung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle zu bewerten, Schwächen, Mängel und Lücken in Bezug auf die digitale operationale Resilienz zu erkennen und Korrekturmaßnahmen umgehend umzusetzen, erstellen, pflegen und überprüfen Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, unter Berücksichtigung der in Artikel 4 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Kriterien ein solides und umfassendes Programm für das Testen der digitalen operationalen Resilienz als integraler Bestandteil des in Artikel 6 genannten IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (2)
Das Programm für Tests der digitalen operationalen Resilienz umfasst eine Reihe von Bewertungen, Tests, Methoden, Verfahren und Tools, die gemäß den Artikeln 25 und 26 anzuwenden sind.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (3)
Bei der Ausführung des in Absatz 1 genannten Programms für das Testen der digitalen operationalen Resilienz wenden Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, unter Berücksichtigung der in Artikel 4 Absatz 2 aufgeführten Kriterien einen risikobasierten Ansatz an, wobei sie die sich entwickelnden IKT-Risikolandschaften, etwaige spezifische Risiken, denen das betreffende Finanzunternehmen ausgesetzt ist oder ausgesetzt sein könnte, die Kritikalität von Informationsassets und erbrachten Dienstleistungen sowie alle sonstigen Faktoren, die das Finanzunternehmen für angemessen hält, gebührend berücksichtigen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (4)
Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, stellen sicher, dass Tests von unabhängigen, internen oder externen Parteien durchgeführt werden. Werden die Tests von einem internen Tester durchgeführt, stellen die Finanzunternehmen ausreichende Ressourcen bereit und tragen dafür Sorge, dass während der Konzeptions- und Durchführungsphase der Prüfung keine Interessenkonflikte entstehen.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (5)
Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, legen Verfahren und Leitlinien zur Priorisierung, Klassifizierung und Behebung aller während der Durchführung der Tests zutage getretenen Probleme fest und legen interne Validierungsmethoden fest, um sicherzustellen, dass alle ermittelten Schwächen, Mängel oder Lücken vollständig angegangen werden.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 (6)
Finanzunternehmen, die keine Kleinstunternehmen sind, stellen sicher, dass bei allen IKT-Systemen und -Anwendungen, die kritische oder wichtige Funktionen unterstützen, mindestens einmal jährlich angemessene Tests durchgeführt werden.
|
Verknüpfte Vorgänge
- 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.
|