+Incident Handling
---+Correlation with External Organizations

Incident Handling

Description

Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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

Correlation with External Organizations

Description

Mechanisms exist to coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Zugehörige Regulierungen

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Zugehörige Regulierungen

Regulierungen
EULAW Artikel 22 Richtlinien für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle

Artikel 22

Richtlinien für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle

Im Rahmen des Mechanismus zur Erkennung anomaler Aktivitäten, worunter auch Probleme bei der Leistung von IKT-Netzwerken und IKT-bezogene Vorfälle fallen, entwickeln, dokumentieren und implementieren die Finanzunternehmen Richtlinien für IKT-bezogene Vorfälle, in deren Rahmen sie

a) 

den in Artikel 17 der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2554 genannten Prozess für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle dokumentieren,

b) 

eine Liste der relevanten Kontakte erstellen, die mit internen Funktionen und externen Interessenträgern, die direkt an der IKT-Betriebssicherheit beteiligt sind, unter anderem in Bezug auf Folgendes unterhalten werden:

i) 

die Erkennung und Überwachung von Cyberbedrohungen,

ii) 

die Erkennung anomaler Aktivitäten,

iii) 

das Schwachstellenmanagement;

c) 

technische, organisatorische und operative Mechanismen zur Unterstützung des Prozesses für die Behandlung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle einrichten, implementieren und betreiben, darunter auch Mechanismen, die eine rasche Erkennung anomaler Tätigkeiten und Verhaltensweisen gemäß Artikel 23 ermöglichen,

▼C1

d) 

gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 2 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2024/1772 der Kommission ( 2 ) und gemäß allen nach Unionsrecht geltenden Speichervorschriften alle Nachweise im Zusammenhang mit IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen so lange aufbewahren, wie es für die Zwecke der Datenerhebung unbedingt erforderlich und der Kritikalität der betreffenden Unternehmensfunktionen, unterstützenden Prozesse sowie IKT- und Informationsassets angemessen ist,

▼B

e) 

Mechanismen zur Analyse bedeutender oder wiederkehrender IKT-bezogener Vorfälle und -Muster in Bezug auf Anzahl und Auftreten IKT-bezogener Vorfälle einrichten und implementieren.

Für die Zwecke des Buchstabens d bewahren die Finanzunternehmen die dort genannten Nachweise auf sichere Weise auf.
EULAW Artikel 23 Erkennung anormaler Aktivitäten und Kriterien für die Erkennung IKT-bezogener Vorfälle und die Reaktion auf solche Vorfälle
-
EULAW Artikel 31 IKT-Risikomanagement
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Schutz und Prävention
-
EULAW Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
EULAW Artikel 18 Klassifizierung von IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen und Cyberbedrohungen
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
EULAW Artikel 23 Berichtspflichten
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Schutz und Prävention
-
EULAW Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
EULAW Artikel 18 Klassifizierung von IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen und Cyberbedrohungen
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Risikomanagementmaßnahmen im Bereich der Cybersicherheit
-
EULAW Artikel 23 Berichtspflichten
-
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 14 (1)
Als Teil des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens gemäß Artikel 6 Absatz 1 verfügen Finanzunternehmen über Kommunikationspläne, die je nach Sachlage eine verantwortungsbewusste Offenlegung zumindest von schwerwiegenden IKT-bezogenen Vorfällen oder Schwachstellen gegenüber Kunden und anderen Finanzunternehmen sowie der Öffentlichkeit ermöglichen.
EULAW Artikel 14 (2)
Als Teil des IKT-Risikomanagementrahmens setzen Finanzunternehmen Kommunikationsstrategien für interne Mitarbeiter und externe Interessenträger um. Bei Kommunikationsleitlinien für Mitarbeiter wird berücksichtigt, dass zwischen dem Personal, das am IKT-Risikomanagement, insbesondere im Bereich Reaktion und Wiederherstellung, beteiligt ist, und dem zu informierendem Personal unterschieden werden muss.
EULAW Artikel 14 (3)
Mindestens eine Person im Finanzunternehmen ist mit der Umsetzung der Kommunikationsstrategie für IKT-bezogene Vorfälle beauftragt und nimmt zu diesem Zweck die entsprechende Aufgabe gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit und den Medien wahr.
EULAW Artikel 18 (1)

Finanzunternehmen klassifizieren IKT-bezogene Vorfälle und bestimmen deren Auswirkungen anhand folgender Kriterien:

a) 

Anzahl und/oder Relevanz der Kunden oder anderer Gegenparteien im Finanzbereich, die von dem IKT-bezogenen Vorfall betroffen sind, und gegebenenfalls des Werts oder der Anzahl der davon betroffenen Transaktionen und ob der IKT-bezogene Vorfall einen Reputationsschaden verursacht hat;

b) 

Dauer des IKT-bezogenen Vorfalls, einschließlich der Ausfallzeiten des Dienstes;

c) 

geografische Ausbreitung der von dem IKT-bezogenen Vorfall betroffenen Gebiete, insbesondere wenn mehr als zwei Mitgliedstaaten betroffen sind;

d) 

die mit dem IKT-bezogenen Vorfall verbundenen Verfügbarkeits-, Authentizitäts-, Integritäts- oder Vertraulichkeitsverluste von Daten;

e) 

Kritikalität der betroffenen Dienste, einschließlich der Transaktionen und Geschäfte des Finanzunternehmens;

f) 

wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen — insbesondere direkte und indirekte Kosten und Verluste — des IKT-bezogenen Vorfalls auf absoluter und relativer Basis.
EULAW Artikel 18 (2)
Finanzunternehmen stufen Cyberbedrohungen auf der Grundlage der Kritikalität der risikobehafteten Dienste, einschließlich der Transaktionen und Geschäfte des Finanzunternehmens, der Anzahl und/oder Relevanz der betroffenen Kunden oder Gegenparteien im Finanzbereich und der geografischen Ausbreitung der Risikogebiete als erheblich ein.

Verknüpfte Vorgänge

Verknüpfungen
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Respond
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 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 relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
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 Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
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 Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
is blocked by IRO-06 Incident Handling – Assessment Procedure
blocks IR-04 Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [L] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [M] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [H] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [P] Incident Handling
blocks 03.03.04 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
blocks 03.06.01 Incident Handling
blocks 03.06.02 Incident Monitoring, Reporting, and Response Assistance
blocks 03.06.05 Incident Response Plan
blocks GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities
blocks DE.AE Adverse Event Analysis
blocks DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
blocks DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources
blocks DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
blocks DE.AE-06 Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff and tools
blocks DE.AE-08 Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
blocks RS RESPOND
blocks RS.MA Incident Management
blocks RS.MA-01 The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is declared
blocks RS.MA-02 Incident reports are triaged and validated
blocks RS.MA-04 Incidents are escalated or elevated as needed
blocks RS.AN Incident Analysis
blocks RS.AN-06 Actions performed during an investigation are recorded, and the records' integrity and provenance are preserved
blocks RS.CO Incident Response Reporting and Communication
blocks RS.CO-02 Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents
blocks RS.CO-03 Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders
blocks RS.MI Incident Mitigation
blocks RS.MI-01 Incidents are contained
blocks RS.MI-02 Incidents are eradicated
blocks RC.RP-06 The end of incident recovery is declared based on criteria, and incident-related documentation is completed
  • 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.