+Assurance Levels (AL)

Assurance Levels (AL)

Description

Mechanisms exist to utilize defined Assurance Levels (AL) for assessment activities to standardize the following assurance attributes:
(1) Depth that addresses the rigor and level of detail of the assessment; and
(2) Coverage that addresses the scope and breadth of the assessment.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Define basic assessment depth (documentation review vs. testing)

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

∙ Define assessment depth and coverage criteria in policy

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

∙ Assurance level definitions in assessment procedures
∙ Apply appropriate AL per control criticality

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

∙ Formal assurance level framework
∙ Tiered assessment approach by risk level

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

∙ Enterprise assurance level framework
∙ Automated control testing for lower-risk controls
∙ In-depth testing for critical systems
∙ Risk-based assessment scheduling

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.
▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 utilize defined Assurance Levels (AL) for assessment activities to standardize the following assurance attributes:
(1) Depth that addresses the rigor and level of detail of the assessment; and
(2) Coverage that addresses the scope and breadth of the assessment.

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. Επισκόπηση

1.1 Παραπομπές

1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί

2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

Απαιτήσεις

3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί

Κανονισμοί

Συνδεδεμένα ζητήματα

Συνδέσεις
is related to Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Process
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 07
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by CPL-13 Assurance Levels (AL) – Assessment Procedure