+Artículo 9 3

Artículo 9 3

3. A fin de alcanzar los objetivos mencionados en el apartado 2, las entidades financieras utilizarán soluciones y procesos de TIC que sean adecuados de conformidad con el artículo 4. Dichas soluciones y procesos de TIC deberán:

a)	garantizar la seguridad de los medios de transmisión de datos;

b)	minimizar el riesgo de corrupción o pérdida de datos, acceso no autorizado y defectos técnicos que puedan obstaculizar la actividad empresarial;

c)	evitar la falta de disponibilidad, el menoscabo de la autenticidad e integridad, la vulneración de la confidencialidad y la pérdida de datos;

d)	garantizar que los datos estén protegidos de riesgos derivados de su gestión, incluidos los debidos a una mala administración, los relacionados con el tratamiento y los errores humanos.

1. Resumen

,

Título	Regulación

1.1 Referencias

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Estándares relacionados

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos
Fuente	Requisito

3. Estándares relacionados

Estándares
Fuente	Requisito
NOREA	ICT (Security) Systems, tools, and solutions Design, procure, and implement security solutions and tooling with the goal to ensure resilience, continuity, and CIA of ICT systems, particularly those supporting critical or important functions.
NOREA	Data Protection Practices Establish a secure configuration baseline for ICT assets, incorporating industry practices and techniques to minimize exposure to cyber threats. Deploy security measures to ensure CIA, prevent data loss and leakage, and protect against malicious codes. Protect data from risks arising from data management, including poor administration, processing risks, and human error. Ensure secure transfer of data and minimize the risk of data corruption or loss, unauthorized access, and technical flaws that may hinder business activity. Implement access restrictions based on data classification schemes. Regularly verify the effective deployment of these baselines.
NOREA	Vendor Recommended Security Settings Consider the security measures and settings recommended by the third-party service provider delivering the ICT service. Implement technical and organisational measures to minimise the risks related to the infrastructure used and managed by the ICT third-party service provider.
NOREA	Endpoint Devices Enforce usage requirements for portable and nonportable endpoint devices. Ensure that only authorized data storage media, systems, and endpoint devices are used to transfer and store data. Implement security measures to ensure that teleworking and the use of private endpoint devices do not adversely impact the overall security of the entity. This includes having a centralized management solution to remotely manage and wipe endpoint devices, security mechanisms that cannot be modified, removed, or bypassed, and the use of removable data storage devices only when the residual ICT risk remains within predefined risk tolerance levels. Enforce security measures to allow only authorized software installation on systems and endpoint devices.
NOREA	Secure Data Deletion and Disposal Establish a process to securely delete data on and offpremises. Establish a process to securely dispose or decommission data storage devices on and offpremises that contain confidential information.
SCF	Contacts With Authorities Description Mechanisms exist to identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Documented list of law enforcement and regulatory contacts (FBI, CISA, state AG) ∙ MS-ISAC free membership (https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Documented contacts with FBI Cyber Division, CISA, and relevant regulators ∙ MS-ISAC or sector-specific ISAC membership ∙ Pre-established law enforcement liaisons for incident response Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with defined authority contacts ∙ CISA Cyber Liaison and FBI Cyber Division contacts ∙ Sector ISAC membership (e.g., FS-ISAC, H-ISAC, E-ISAC) ∙ Regulatory notification contact list (e.g., FTC, OCR, state regulators) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with pre-established authority relationships ∙ Formal engagement with law enforcement (FBI, USSS, CISA) ∙ Sector ISAC active membership with information sharing participation ∙ Regulatory breach notification contacts and documented procedures Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Dedicated government liaison program (FBI, CISA, NSA, sector regulators) ∙ Active ISAC membership with classified threat briefing access (where applicable) ∙ Pre-established breach notification workflows for all applicable regulators ∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT) with 24/7 law enforcement contact protocols 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 personnel identify and maintain contact information for local and national law enforcement (e.g., FBI field office) in case of cybersecurity incidents that require law enforcement involvement. 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 identify and document appropriate contacts with relevant law enforcement and regulatory bodies. 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 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. ▪ 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	Configuration Management Policy Description Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented configuration management policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Documented annual policy review with version control Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking 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) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history ∙ Annual executive approval and board-level 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 Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Configuration 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 Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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). 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	Configuration Management Program Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of configuration management controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Configuration Management (CM) program ∙ Change control program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Configuration Management (CM) program ∙ Change control program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Configuration Management (CM) program ∙ Change control program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Configuration Management (CM) program ∙ Change control program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Configuration Management (CM) program ∙ Change control 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 Configuration Management (CFG) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CFG domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Configuration management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Configurations mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). Level 2 Planned Tracked Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Configuration management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) are used to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) according to the principles of least functionality and least privilege, mostly conforming to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 configuration management controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Configuration Management (CFG) 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 Configuration Management (CFG) 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	Secure Engineering & Architecture Policy Description Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented secure engineering and architecture policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Documented annual policy review with version control Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking 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) for policy lifecycle management ∙ Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history ∙ Annual executive approval and board-level 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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	Security, Compliance & Resilience Aware Design Description Mechanisms exist to formally incorporate the organization's secure architecture principles into engineering, product and model design requirements to ensure security, compliance and resilience are built in by default and by design. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Security design checklist for new systems or applications ∙ OWASP Top 10 design guidance Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ OWASP secure design principles ∙ Security requirements in development projects Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Security-by-design requirements integrated into SDLC ∙ Threat modeling for new systems ∙ OWASP Threat Dragon or similar Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise secure-by-design program ∙ Threat modeling requirements in SDLC ∙ Security architecture approval for new projects ∙ Privacy and security design reviews Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise security-aware design program ∙ Automated threat modeling integration in SDLC ∙ Security and privacy design reviews for all new systems ∙ Board-approved security-by-design policy 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to formally incorporate the organization's secure architecture principles into engineering, product and model design requirements to ensure security, compliance and resilience are built in by default and by design. 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	Secure Architecture Principles Description Mechanisms exist to ensure security, compliance and resilience capabilities are designed and maintained in alignment with security architecture principles from: (1) The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF); (2) Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA); and/or (3) An organization-defined reference architecture. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Reference NIST CSF for architecture guidance ∙ Apply basic secure design principles (least privilege, defense-in-depth) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ NIST CSF and OWASP design principles ∙ Documented secure design checklist Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ TOGAF or SABSA-aligned secure architecture principles ∙ Documented architecture principles standard ∙ Security architecture review in project lifecycle Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise secure architecture principles aligned to TOGAF or SABSA ∙ Security Architecture Review Board (SARB) ∙ Architecture principles enforced in project governance Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise architecture framework with embedded security principles (TOGAF or SABSA) ∙ Dedicated security architecture function ∙ Automated architecture compliance checking ∙ Board-approved enterprise architecture standards 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure security, compliance and resilience capabilities are designed and maintained in alignment with security architecture principles from: (1) The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF); (2) Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA); and/or (3) An organization-defined reference architecture. 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	Secure Baseline Configurations Description Mechanisms exist to develop, document and maintain secure baseline configurations for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are consistent with industry-accepted hardening standards. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.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 Configuration Management (CFG) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CFG domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Configuration management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Configurations mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). Level 2 Planned Tracked Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Configuration management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) are used to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) according to the principles of least functionality and least privilege, mostly conforming to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). ▪ The restrictiveness of the SBCs are commensurate with the criticality of the TAAS and/or sensitivity of the data being protected, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and frameworks. ▪ Tailored SBC are created for higher-risk operating environments and/or for TAAS that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data. Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 develop, document and maintain secure baseline configurations for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are consistent with industry-accepted system hardening standards. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Configuration Management (CFG) 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 Configuration Management (CFG) 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	Alignment With Enterprise Architecture Description Mechanisms exist to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for security, compliance and resilience principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Follow secure coding basics ∙ Document security decisions Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure design checklist ∙ Basic threat modeling Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise architecture 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for security, compliance and resilience principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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	Secure Engineering Principles Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of industry-recognized security, compliance and resilience practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SEA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security engineering-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 design, build and maintain secure, compliant and resilient solutions. Level 2 Planned Tracked Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manage separate development, testing and operational environments to reduce the risks of unauthorized access or changes to the operational environment and to ensure no impact to production TAASD. Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of industry-recognized security, compliance and resilience practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of TAAS. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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	Defense-In-Depth (DiD) Architecture Description Mechanisms exist to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls and routers) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception). Level 2 Planned Tracked Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manage separate development, testing and operational environments to reduce the risks of unauthorized access or changes to the operational environment and to ensure no impact to production TAASD. Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering 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 SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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: 27.12.2022 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32022R2554
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/