+Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
---+Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
---+Data Action Mapping
|
Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive and/or regulated data flows.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free, https://draw.io) or Microsoft Visio
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free) or Microsoft Visio
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com) or Microsoft Visio
∙ Network documentation tool (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Network topology tool (e.g., SolarWinds Network Topology Mapper, NetBox)
∙ Automated network diagram updates via discovery tools
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Enterprise network documentation platform (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
∙ Automated network discovery and diagram generation
∙ Diagrams integrated with CMDB and change 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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive/regulated data flows.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Πρότυπο |
|
Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
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.
|
|
Data Action Mapping
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive and/or regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io) for data flow diagrams
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Documented data flow diagrams with sensitivity labels
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ draw.io (https://draw.io)
∙ Data flow diagrams integrated with privacy impact assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Data flow diagrams maintained in CMDB or GRC platform
∙ Automated data mapping tools (e.g., BigID, OneTrust Data Mapping)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data flow/action mapping platform (e.g., BigID, OneTrust, Securiti.ai)
∙ Microsoft Visio / LucidChart for technical documentation
∙ Automated data lineage tools (e.g., Collibra, Alation)
∙ Data maps maintained current for regulatory compliance (GDPR Article 30)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικοί κανονισμοί
Κανονισμοί
| Πηγή |
Κανονισμός |
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 4 Πολιτική διαχείρισης πόρων ΤΠΕ
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 13 Διαχείριση ασφάλειας δικτύου
Άρθρο 13
Διαχείριση ασφάλειας δικτύου
Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες, στο πλαίσιο των διασφαλίσεων που εγγυώνται την ασφάλεια των δικτύων έναντι εισβολών και κατάχρησης δεδομένων, αναπτύσσουν, τεκμηριώνουν και εφαρμόζουν πολιτικές, διαδικασίες, πρωτόκολλα και εργαλεία για τη διαχείριση της ασφάλειας δικτύου, μεταξύ άλλων όλα τα ακόλουθα:
α)
τον διαχωρισμό και την κατάτμηση των συστημάτων και δικτύων ΤΠΕ, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη:
i)
την κρισιμότητα ή τη σημασία της λειτουργίας την οποία υποστηρίζουν τα εν λόγω συστήματα και δίκτυα ΤΠΕ·
ii)
την ταξινόμηση που καθορίζεται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 8 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554·
iii)
το συνολικό προφίλ κινδύνου των πόρων ΤΠΕ οι οποίοι χρησιμοποιούν τα εν λόγω συστήματα και δίκτυα ΤΠΕ·
β)
την τεκμηρίωση όλων των συνδέσεων δικτύου και των ροών δεδομένων της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας·
γ)
τη χρήση χωριστού και ειδικού δικτύου για τη διαχείριση των πόρων ΤΠΕ·
δ)
τον προσδιορισμό και την εφαρμογή ελέγχων πρόσβασης στο δίκτυο για την πρόληψη και τον εντοπισμό συνδέσεων στο δίκτυο της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας από οποιαδήποτε μη εγκεκριμένη συσκευή ή σύστημα, ή τελικό σημείο που δεν πληροί τις απαιτήσεις ασφαλείας της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας·
ε)
την κρυπτογράφηση συνδέσεων δικτύου που διέρχονται μέσω εταιρικών δικτύων, δημόσιων δικτύων, εγχώριων δικτύων, δικτύων τρίτων και ασύρματων δικτύων, για τα χρησιμοποιούμενα πρωτόκολλα επικοινωνίας, με συνεκτίμηση των αποτελεσμάτων της εγκεκριμένης κατηγοριοποίησης δεδομένων, των αποτελεσμάτων της αξιολόγησης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ και της κρυπτογράφησης των συνδέσεων δικτύου που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 2·
στ)
τον σχεδιασμό δικτύων σύμφωνα με τις απαιτήσεις ασφάλειας ΤΠΕ που έχει θεσπίσει η χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα, με συνεκτίμηση κορυφαίων πρακτικών για τη διασφάλιση της εμπιστευτικότητας, της ακεραιότητας και της διαθεσιμότητας του δικτύου·
ζ)
τη διασφάλιση της κίνησης στο δίκτυο μεταξύ των εσωτερικών δικτύων και του διαδικτύου και άλλων εξωτερικών συνδέσεων·
η)
τον προσδιορισμό των ρόλων και των αρμοδιοτήτων και των βημάτων για τον καθορισμό, την εφαρμογή, την έγκριση, την αλλαγή και την επανεξέταση των κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης·
θ)
τη διενέργεια επανεξετάσεων της αρχιτεκτονικής δικτύου και του σχεδιασμού ασφάλειας δικτύου μία φορά ετησίως και περιοδικά για τις πολύ μικρές επιχειρήσεις, για τον εντοπισμό πιθανών ευπαθειών·
ι)
τα μέτρα για την προσωρινή απομόνωση, κατά περίπτωση, των υποδικτύων και των στοιχείων και συσκευών δικτύου·
ια)
την εφαρμογή βάσης αναφοράς ασφαλούς διαμόρφωσης όλων των στοιχείων του δικτύου και τη θωράκιση του δικτύου και των συσκευών δικτύου σύμφωνα με τυχόν οδηγίες του προμηθευτή, κατά περίπτωση, με πρότυπα, όπως ορίζονται στο άρθρο 2 σημείο 1) του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1025/2012, και με κορυφαίες πρακτικές·
ιβ)
τις διαδικασίες περιορισμού, κλειδώματος και τερματισμού λειτουργίας συστημάτων και των απομακρυσμένων περιόδων λειτουργίας μετά από συγκεκριμένη περίοδο αδράνειας·
ιγ)
όσον αφορά τις συμφωνίες υπηρεσιών δικτύου:
i)
τον προσδιορισμό και την εξειδίκευση των μέτρων ασφάλειας ΤΠΕ και πληροφοριών, των επιπέδων υπηρεσιών και των απαιτήσεων διαχείρισης όλων των υπηρεσιών δικτύου·
ii)
αν οι εν λόγω υπηρεσίες παρέχονται από ενδοομιλικό πάροχο υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ ή από τρίτους παρόχους υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ.
Για τους σκοπούς του στοιχείου η), οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες διενεργούν την επανεξέταση των κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης σε τακτική βάση σύμφωνα με την ταξινόμηση που καθορίζεται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 8 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554 και το συνολικό προφίλ κινδύνου των σχετικών συστημάτων ΤΠΕ. Για τα συστήματα ΤΠΕ που υποστηρίζουν κρίσιμες ή σημαντικές λειτουργίες, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες επαληθεύουν την επάρκεια των υφιστάμενων κανόνων του τείχους προστασίας και των φίλτρων σύνδεσης τουλάχιστον κάθε 6 μήνες.
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 8 Προσδιορισμός
|
|
EULAW
|
Άρθρο 8 4
4. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες προσδιορίζουν όλους τους πληροφοριακούς πόρους και τους πόρους ΤΠΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένων εκείνων που βρίσκονται σε απομακρυσμένες τοποθεσίες, τους πόρους δικτύου και τον εξοπλισμό υλισμικού, και καταγράφουν όσους θεωρούνται κρίσιμοι. Καταγράφουν τις παραμέτρους των πληροφοριακών πόρων και των πόρων ΤΠΕ, καθώς και τις συνδέσεις και τις αλληλεξαρτήσεις μεταξύ των διαφόρων πληροφοριακών πόρων και πόρων ΤΠΕ.
|
Συνδεδεμένα ζητήματα
- 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.
|