+Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)

Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)

Description

Mechanisms exist to formally document a Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM), delineating assigned responsibilities for security, compliance and resilience controls between the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) and its customers.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)
∙ Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM)
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)
∙ Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM)
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)
∙ Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM)
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)
∙ Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM)
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM)
∙ Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM)
∙ 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

Cloud Security (CLD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CLD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cloud management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM), or similar Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM), is documented for each Cloud Service Provider (CSP) instance.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Cloud Security (CLD) 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 CLD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CLD 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 CLD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cloud management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cloud management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cloud-based Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are governed according to the same processes used for on-premises TAAS, where no formal, dedicated cloud governance process exists.
▪ A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM), or similar Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM), is documented for each Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) instance that takes into account differences between Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) methodologies.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cloud Security (CLD) 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 CLD 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 CLD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A cloud governance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CLD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cloud governance operations (e.g., multi-cloud governance tools, policy enforcement, cost management, etc.).
▪ 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 CLD 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 formally document a Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM), delineating assigned responsibilities for security, compliance and resilience controls between the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) and its customers.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Overview

1.1 References

1.2 Identified Requirements

1.3 Related Regulations

2. Identified Requirements

Requirements

3. Related Regulations

Regulations

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences
blocks Fines and judgements
blocks Inability to support business processes
blocks Incorrect controls scoping
blocks Lack of roles & responsibilities
blocks Inadequate internal practices
blocks Inadequate third-party practices
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks Improper response to incidents
blocks Ineffective remediation actions
blocks Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks Inability to maintain situational awareness
blocks Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks Third-party physical security exposure
blocks Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks Use of product / service
blocks Reliance on the third-party
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Impressum German English