+Άρθρο 28 Διακυβέρνηση και οργάνωση
---+Άρθρο 28 1.
---+Άρθρο 28 2.
---+Άρθρο 28 3.
---+Άρθρο 28 4.
---+Άρθρο 28 5.
---+Άρθρο 28 6.

Άρθρο 28 Διακυβέρνηση και οργάνωση

1. Επισκόπηση

Τίτλος	Κανονισμός
Άρθρο 28 1.	Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 16 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554 διαθέτουν πλαίσιο εσωτερικής διακυβέρνησης και ελέγχου που διασφαλίζει την αποτελεσματική και συνετή διαχείριση των κινδύνων ΤΠΕ για την επίτευξη υψηλού επιπέδου ψηφιακής επιχειρησιακής ανθεκτικότητας.
Άρθρο 28 2.	Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1, εντός του οικείου απλουστευμένου πλαισίου διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ, διασφαλίζουν ότι το διοικητικό τους όργανο: α) φέρει τη συνολική ευθύνη να διασφαλίζει ότι το απλουστευμένο πλαίσιο διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ καθιστά δυνατή την επίτευξη της επιχειρηματικής στρατηγικής της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας σύμφωνα με τη διάθεση ανάληψης κινδύνου της εν λόγω χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας, και διασφαλίζει ότι οι κίνδυνοι ΤΠΕ λαμβάνονται υπόψη σε αυτό το πλαίσιο· β) καθορίζει σαφείς ρόλους και αρμοδιότητες για όλα τα καθήκοντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ· γ) καθορίζει στόχους για την ασφάλεια των πληροφοριών και απαιτήσεις ΤΠΕ· δ) εγκρίνει, επιβλέπει και περιοδικά επανεξετάζει: i) την ταξινόμηση των πληροφοριακών πόρων της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας, όπως αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 30 παράγραφος 1 του παρόντος κανονισμού, τον κατάλογο των κυριότερων εντοπισθέντων κινδύνων και την ανάλυση των επιχειρηματικών επιπτώσεων και τις σχετικές πολιτικές· ii) τα σχέδια επιχειρησιακής συνέχειας της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας και τα μέτρα αντιμετώπισης και ανάκαμψης που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 16 παράγραφος 1 στοιχείο στ) του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2022/2554· ε) κατανέμει και επανεξετάζει τουλάχιστον μία φορά ετησίως τον προϋπολογισμό που είναι απαραίτητος για την εκπλήρωση των αναγκών ψηφιακής επιχειρησιακής ανθεκτικότητας της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας όσον αφορά όλα τα είδη πόρων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των σχετικών προγραμμάτων ευαισθητοποίησης σε θέματα ασφάλειας των ΤΠΕ, της κατάρτισης για την ψηφιακή επιχειρησιακή ανθεκτικότητα και των δεξιοτήτων ΤΠΕ για όλους· στ) προσδιορίζει και εφαρμόζει τις πολιτικές και τα μέτρα που περιλαμβάνονται στα κεφάλαια I, II και III του παρόντος τίτλου για τον εντοπισμό, την αξιολόγηση και τη διαχείριση των κινδύνων ΤΠΕ στους οποίους είναι εκτεθειμένη η χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα· ζ) προσδιορίζει και εφαρμόζει διαδικασίες, πρωτόκολλα ΤΠΕ και εργαλεία που είναι απαραίτητα για την προστασία όλων των πληροφοριακών πόρων και των πόρων ΤΠΕ· η) διασφαλίζει ότι το προσωπικό της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας ενημερώνεται και διαθέτει επαρκείς γνώσεις και δεξιότητες, ώστε να κατανοεί και να αξιολογεί τους κινδύνους ΤΠΕ και τις επιπτώσεις τους στις δραστηριότητες της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας, ανάλογα με τον υπό διαχείριση κίνδυνο ΤΠΕ· θ) θεσπίζει τις ρυθμίσεις υποβολής εκθέσεων, μεταξύ άλλων τη συχνότητα, τη μορφή και το περιεχόμενο των εκθέσεων προς το διοικητικό όργανο σχετικά με την ασφάλεια των πληροφοριών και την ψηφιακή επιχειρησιακή ανθεκτικότητα.
Άρθρο 28 3.	Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1 μπορούν, σύμφωνα με το ενωσιακό και το εθνικό τομεακό δίκαιο, να αναθέτουν τα καθήκοντα επαλήθευσης της συμμόρφωσης με τις απαιτήσεις διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ σε ενδοομιλικούς ή τρίτους παρόχους υπηρεσιών ΤΠΕ. Σε περίπτωση τέτοιας εξωτερικής ανάθεσης, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες παραμένουν εξολοκλήρου υπεύθυνες για την επαλήθευση της συμμόρφωσης με τις απαιτήσεις διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ.
Άρθρο 28 4.	Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1 διασφαλίζουν τον κατάλληλο διαχωρισμό και την ανεξαρτησία των λειτουργιών ελέγχου και των λειτουργιών εσωτερικής επιθεώρησης.
Άρθρο 28 5.	Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1 διασφαλίζουν ότι το απλουστευμένο τους πλαίσιο διαχείρισης κινδύνων ΤΠΕ υπόκειται σε εσωτερική επιθεώρηση από ελεγκτές, σύμφωνα με το πρόγραμμα ελέγχου των χρηματοοικονομικών οντοτήτων. Οι ελεγκτές διαθέτουν επαρκείς γνώσεις, δεξιότητες και εμπειρογνωσία όσον αφορά τους κινδύνους ΤΠΕ και είναι ανεξάρτητοι. Η συχνότητα και η εστίαση των ελέγχων ΤΠΕ είναι ανάλογες προς τους κινδύνους ΤΠΕ που αντιμετωπίζει η χρηματοοικονομική οντότητα.
Άρθρο 28 6.	Με βάση το αποτέλεσμα της επιθεώρησης που αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 5, οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 1 διασφαλίζουν την έγκαιρη επαλήθευση και αποκατάσταση κρίσιμων ευρημάτων ελέγχου ΤΠΕ.

1.1 Παραπομπές

1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα

2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

Απαιτήσεις
Πηγή	Απαίτηση

3. Σχετικά πρότυπα

Πρότυπα
Πηγή	Απαίτηση
SCF	Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls. 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) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Steering committee ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) ∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment 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. ▪ 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). ▪ 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. ▪ 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). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system. ▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis. 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 facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls. 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.
SCF	Control Objectives Description Mechanisms exist to establish control objectives as the basis for the design, selection, implementation and management of the organization's internal security, compliance and resilience control system. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Document basic security control objectives in a policy Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Written control objectives tied to applicable requirements Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal control objectives framework ∙ Mapped to applicable laws and regulations Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise control objectives library ∙ Mapped to regulatory requirements ∙ GRC platform for control tracking Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., ServiceNow GRC, RSA Archer) ∙ Control objectives library ∙ Automated compliance mapping ∙ Continuous control monitoring 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. ▪ 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 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 control objectives as the basis for the selection, implementation and management of the organization's internal security, compliance and resilience control system. 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.
SCF	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.
SCF	Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities Description Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Designated internal security point of contact ∙ vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Part-time or shared security manager ∙ vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role ∙ Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget ∙ Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.) ∙ Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access ∙ Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads) ∙ Security Center of Excellence (CoE) ∙ Defined succession planning for key security roles 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. ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). ▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives. 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). ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). 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.
SCF	Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities Description Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Designated internal security point of contact ∙ vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Part-time or shared security manager ∙ vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role ∙ Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget ∙ Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.) ∙ Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access ∙ Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads) ∙ Security Center of Excellence (CoE) ∙ Defined succession planning for key security roles 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. ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). ▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives. 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). ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). 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.
SCF	Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities Description Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Designated internal security point of contact ∙ vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP)) ∙ Part-time or shared security manager ∙ vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role ∙ Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget ∙ Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.) ∙ Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access ∙ Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads) ∙ Security Center of Excellence (CoE) ∙ Defined succession planning for key security roles 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. ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). ▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives. 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). ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). 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.
SCF	Stakeholder Accountability Structure Description Mechanisms exist to enforce an accountability structure so that appropriate teams and individuals are empowered, responsible and trained for identifying, mapping, measuring and managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Documented roles and responsibilities (RACI matrix or equivalent) ∙ Job descriptions with security duties clearly defined Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Documented RACI matrix for cybersecurity responsibilities ∙ Formal security role assignments in job descriptions ∙ Access control aligned to defined roles Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Documented RACI matrix for cybersecurity responsibilities ∙ Role-based accountability framework ∙ Performance metrics tied to security responsibilities Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal accountability framework (RACI/RASCI) maintained in GRC platform ∙ Security role definitions with measurable performance criteria ∙ Control ownership assigned and tracked in GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise accountability framework integrated with GRC and HR systems ∙ Control ownership model with documented accountability for each control domain ∙ Security KPIs tied to role-based performance management ∙ Third-party accountability structures for key vendors 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 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 enforce an accountability structure so that appropriate teams and individuals are empowered, responsible and trained for mapping, measuring and managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks. 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.
SCF	Steering Committee & Program Oversight Description Mechanisms exist to align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Fractional security advisor Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Informal security advisory committee Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Steering committee / advisory board ∙ Quarterly security committee meetings with documented minutes ∙ Cross-functional representation (IT, Legal, HR, Operations) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Documented charter with defined roles and meeting cadence ∙ Board-level cybersecurity reporting Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Board-level Cybersecurity Committee or subcommittee ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with board-level access ∙ Independent security advisor / external audit committee 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. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. 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 align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. 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.
SCF	Steering Committee & Program Oversight Description Mechanisms exist to align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Fractional security advisor Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts) ∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service ∙ Informal security advisory committee Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Steering committee / advisory board ∙ Quarterly security committee meetings with documented minutes ∙ Cross-functional representation (IT, Legal, HR, Operations) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Documented charter with defined roles and meeting cadence ∙ Board-level cybersecurity reporting Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board ∙ Board-level Cybersecurity Committee or subcommittee ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with board-level access ∙ Independent security advisor / external audit committee 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. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. 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 align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis. 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.
SCF	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. 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 provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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.
SCF	Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities Description Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.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 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 compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control. 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.
SCF	Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) Description Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments 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. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable. 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 facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks). 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. 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.
SCF	Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) Description Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments 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. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable. 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 facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks). 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. 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.
SCF	Non-Conformity Corrective Action Description Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet) ∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking ∙ Management review of open findings Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal corrective action plan process ∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation ∙ Management review of open findings Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise corrective action management program ∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking ∙ Executive reporting on open findings Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management ∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows ∙ Board-level reporting on material findings 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. Level 2 Planned Tracked Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations. 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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations. 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.
SCF	Internal Audit Function Description Mechanisms exist to implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing executive management with insights into the overall management of the organization's security, compliance and resilience capabilities. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Internal audit program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Internal audit program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Internal audit program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Internal audit program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Internal audit program 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 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 implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing senior organization management with insights into the appropriateness of the organization's technology and information governance processes. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Compliance (CPL) 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.
SCF	Internal Audit Function Description Mechanisms exist to implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing executive management with insights into the overall management of the organization's security, compliance and resilience capabilities. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Internal audit program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Internal audit program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Internal audit program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Internal audit program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Internal audit program 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 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 implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing senior organization management with insights into the appropriateness of the organization's technology and information governance processes. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Compliance (CPL) 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.
SCF	Periodic Audits Description Mechanisms exist to conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Annual self-assessment against applicable compliance requirements ∙ External compliance review if contractually required Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Annual internal review of key security controls ∙ External audit for compliance requirements Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Internal audit program ∙ Annual external compliance audits ∙ GRC platform for audit tracking. Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise internal audit function ∙ Annual external audits. ∙ GRC platform with audit management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise internal audit program with dedicated resources ∙ Multiple external compliance audits ∙ Continuous control monitoring and automated audit reporting 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 Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an entity-defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data protection control assessments. ▪ Specialized assessments are conducted for specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations, as well as business-critical TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity use an impartial member of its team or a third-party assessor to perform an independent assessment of cybersecurity and data protection controls. 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 conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Compliance (CPL) 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 Compliance (CPL) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
SCF	Assessment Team Subject Matter Expertise Description Mechanisms exist to ensure individuals performing audits and/or assessments have reasonable: (1) Professional qualifications to perform the audit and/or assessment; and (2) Subject matter expertise to perform review, interview and test activities for in-scope People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Compliance checklist ∙ Annual compliance review Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Compliance management program ∙ Regulatory mapping ∙ Compliance calendar 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.) ∙ Compliance team Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Dedicated compliance team ∙ Automated compliance monitoring 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. Level 2 Planned Tracked Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations. 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 ensure individuals performing audits and/or assessments have reasonable: (1) Professional qualifications to perform the audit and/or assessment; and (2) Subject matter expertise to perform review, interview and test activities for in-scope People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF). 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.
SCF	Data & Asset Classification Description Mechanisms exist to ensure data and assets are categorized in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Data classification program ∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Data classification program ∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Data classification program ∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program ∙ Data governance program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Data classification program ∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program ∙ Data governance program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Data classification program ∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program ∙ Data governance program 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 Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations. ▪ TAASD are categorized according to data classification and business criticality. ▪ Data classification and handling criteria govern requirements protect sensitive/regulated regardless of where it is stored, processed and/or transmitted. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to categorize data in accordance with organizational policies and standards. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed. Level 3 Well Defined Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 data and assets are categorized in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
SCF	Defined Roles & Responsibilities Description Mechanisms exist to define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix 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 Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ Formal roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity and/or data protection are not consistent and/or standardized. Level 2 Planned Tracked Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. Level 3 Well Defined Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Human Resources Security (HRS) 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.
SCF	Separation of Duties (SoD) Description Mechanisms exist to implement and maintain Separation of Duties (SoD) to prevent potential inappropriate activity without collusion. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Documented / assigned Separation of Duties (SoD) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Documented / assigned Separation of Duties (SoD) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Documented / assigned Separation of Duties (SoD) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Documented / assigned Separation of Duties (SoD) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Documented / assigned Separation of Duties (SoD) 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 Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. Level 2 Planned Tracked Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ The HR department, in conjunction with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel, implements and maintains Separation of Duties (SoD) to prevent potential malevolent activity without collusion. Level 3 Well Defined Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 implement and maintain Separation of Duties (SoD) to prevent potential inappropriate activity without collusion. 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.
SCF	Capabilities Deficiency Tracking Description Mechanisms exist to govern identified deficiencies (e.g., Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) or similar methodology) that formally documents, at a minimum: (1) Deficiency tracking number; (2) Applicable security, compliance and/or resilience control; (3) Description of the deficiency(ies); (4) Risk associated with the deficiency(ies); (5) Source deficiency identification/detection; (6) Temporary compensating controls, if applicable; (7) Point of Contact (POC) (e.g., asset/process owner); (8) Resources required to conduct remediation actions; (9) Planned remedial actions to the deficiency(ies); (10) Proposed remediation timeline; and (11) Disposition statement (e.g., closeout summary). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ∙ Risk register Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ∙ Risk register Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ∙ Risk register Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ∙ Risk register Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ∙ Risk register 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 Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing. Level 3 Well Defined Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 govern identified deficiencies (e.g., Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) or similar methodology) that formally documents, at a minimum: (1) Deficiency tracking number; (2) Applicable security, compliance and/or resilience control; (3) Description of the deficiency(ies); (4) Risk associated with the deficiency(ies); (5) Source deficiency identification/detection; (6) Temporary compensating controls, if applicable; (7) Point of Contact (POC) (e.g., asset/process owner); (8) Resources required to conduct remediation actions; (9) Planned remedial actions to the deficiency(ies); (10) Proposed remediation timeline; and (11) Disposition statement (e.g., closeout summary). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Information Assurance (IAO) 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.
SCF	Allocation of Resources Description Mechanisms exist to identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Include security tasks in project plans Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Security requirements in project planning ∙ Project security checklist Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity road map ∙ Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity road map ∙ Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity road map ∙ Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses 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 Project & Resource Management (PRM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PRM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Project management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with data/process owners to help ensure secure practices are implemented throughout the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects. Level 2 Planned Tracked Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Project & Resource Management -related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Project & Resource 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 Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements. ▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or project management function, enables the implementation of cybersecurity and data protection-related resource planning controls across the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects. ▪ The PM function enables project involvement for Information Assurance Program (IAP) as part of the organization's established project management processes to ensure both cybersecurity and data protection principles are identified and implemented. ▪ Quarterly Business Review (QBR), or similar status reporting, exists to provide recurring reports on the state of the cybersecurity and data protection program. Level 3 Well Defined Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of project and resource management operations (e.g., project 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 PRM 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). ▪ The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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.
SCF	Risk Management Program Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls that are aligned with: (1) The organization's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM); and (2) Industry-recognized cybersecurity risk management practices. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) 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 Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. Level 2 Planned Tracked Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 facilitate the implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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.
SCF	Risk Appetite Description Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk appetite, the degree of uncertainty the organization is willing to accept in anticipation of a reward. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Defined risk tolerance Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Defined risk tolerance Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Defined risk tolerance Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Defined risk tolerance Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Defined risk tolerance 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 Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. 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 Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 define organizational risk appetite, the degree of uncertainty the organization is willing to accept in anticipation of a reward. 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.
SCF	Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) to identify and assess security, compliance and resilience risks. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) 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 Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) to identify and assess security, compliance and resilience risks. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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.
SCF	Risk Assessment Description Mechanisms exist to conduct recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Risk assessment ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Risk assessment ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Risk assessment ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Risk assessment ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Risk assessment ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. Level 2 Planned Tracked Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 recurring assessments of risk that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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.
SCF	Operations Security Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of operational security controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) ∙ VisibleOps (https://itpi.org) ∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) ∙ VisibleOps (https://itpi.org) ∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ COBIT 2019 Framework (https://isaca.org) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) ∙ VisibleOps (https://itpi.org) ∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ COBIT 2019 Framework (https://isaca.org) 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 Security Operations (OPS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with OPS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Cybersecurity operations-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Cybersecurity operations are primarily viewed as additional duties for IT staff. ▪ There is no Security Operations Center (SOC) with 24x7x365 operations coverage. Level 2 Planned Tracked Security Operations (OPS) 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 OPS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with OPS 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 OPS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security operations management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security operations management 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 Security Operations (OPS) 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 OPS 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 OPS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain OPS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security operations management (e.g., SIEM solution and EDR/XDR 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 OPS 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). ▪ Cybersecurity personnel create “run books,” or SOPs, to capture operational knowledge in documentation form for critical business functions and/or for sensitive/regulated obligations. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of operational security controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Security Operations (OPS) 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.
SCF	Security, Compliance & Resilience-Minded Workforce Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of security workforce development and awareness controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) 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 Security Awareness & Training (SAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security awareness and training-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Security awareness and training methods are often generic, without organization-specific content. Level 2 Planned Tracked Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security Awareness & Training-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security Awareness & Training may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Users are educated on their responsibilities to protect TAASD assigned to them or under their supervision. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel create/govern security and awareness training to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. ▪ Privileged users receive formal security and/or data privacy awareness training to ensure they understand their unique roles and responsibilities. ▪ The responsibility for training users and enforcing policies may be assigned to user's immediate supervisor(s)/manager(s), including the definition and enforcement of the user's specific role(s) and responsibilities. Level 3 Well Defined Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security awareness & training team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain SAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security awareness and training management (e.g., Computer Based Learning (CBL) solutions). ▪ 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 SAT 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 facilitate the implementation of security workforce development and awareness controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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.
SCF	Security, Compliance & Resilience Awareness Training Description Mechanisms exist to provide all employees and contractors appropriate security, compliance and resilience awareness education and training that is relevant for their job function. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.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 Security Awareness & Training (SAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security awareness and training-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Security awareness and training methods are often generic, without organization-specific content. Level 2 Planned Tracked Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security Awareness & Training-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security Awareness & Training may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Users are educated on their responsibilities to protect TAASD assigned to them or under their supervision. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel create/govern security and awareness training to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. Level 3 Well Defined Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security awareness & training team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain SAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security awareness and training management (e.g., Computer Based Learning (CBL) solutions). ▪ 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 SAT 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 provide all employees and contractors appropriate security, compliance and resilience awareness education and training that is relevant for their job function. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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.
SCF	Security, Compliance & Resilience Awareness Training Description Mechanisms exist to provide all employees and contractors appropriate security, compliance and resilience awareness education and training that is relevant for their job function. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Initial & annual security, compliance and resilience awareness training ∙ KnowB4 (https://knowbe4.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 Security Awareness & Training (SAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security awareness and training-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Security awareness and training methods are often generic, without organization-specific content. Level 2 Planned Tracked Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security Awareness & Training-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security Awareness & Training may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Users are educated on their responsibilities to protect TAASD assigned to them or under their supervision. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel create/govern security and awareness training to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. Level 3 Well Defined Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security awareness & training team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain SAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security awareness and training management (e.g., Computer Based Learning (CBL) solutions). ▪ 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 SAT 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 provide all employees and contractors appropriate security, compliance and resilience awareness education and training that is relevant for their job function. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Management Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Third-party management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No centralized inventory of External Service Providers (ESP) is maintained. ▪ ESP are not formally managed according to criticality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party 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. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor 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 TPM 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 facilitate the implementation of third-party management controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Services Description Mechanisms exist to mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party 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. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel proactively control and monitor third-party accounts used to access, support, or maintain system components via remote access. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor 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 TPM 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 mitigate the risks associated with third-party access to the organization's TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.

Builddate: 25.06.2024 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32024R1774
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

Άρθρο 28 Διακυβέρνηση και οργάνωση

1. Επισκόπηση

1.1 Παραπομπές

1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα

2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

3. Σχετικά πρότυπα

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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