+Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)
|
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.
1. Resumen
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Regulaciones relacionadas
Regulaciones
| Fuente |
Regulación |
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 2
2. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC incluirá al menos las estrategias, las políticas, los procedimientos, y los protocolos y herramientas de TIC que sean necesarios para proteger debida y adecuadamente todos los activos de información y activos de TIC, incluidos el software, el hardware y los servidores, así como para proteger todos los componentes e infraestructuras físicos pertinentes, como locales, centros de datos y zonas sensibles designadas, a fin de garantizar que todos los activos de información y activos de TIC estén adecuadamente protegidos de los riesgos, incluidos los daños y el acceso o uso no autorizados.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 9 4
4. Como parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, las entidades financieras deberán:
|
a)
|
elaborar y documentar una política de seguridad de la información que defina normas para proteger la confidencialidad, disponibilidad, integridad o autenticidad de los datos, activos de información y activos de TIC, incluidos los de sus clientes, en su caso;
|
|
b)
|
siguiendo un enfoque basado en el riesgo, establecer una estructura de gestión sólida de redes e infraestructuras utilizando técnicas, métodos y protocolos adecuados que puedan incluir la aplicación de mecanismos automatizados para aislar los activos de información afectados en caso de ciberataques;
|
|
c)
|
aplicar políticas que limiten el acceso físico o lógico a los activos de información y activos de TIC a lo que sea necesario únicamente para funciones y actividades legítimas y aprobadas, y establecer a tal fin un conjunto de políticas, procedimientos y controles que se centren en los derechos de acceso y garanticen una buena administración de estos;
|
|
d)
|
aplicar políticas y protocolos para mecanismos de autenticación fuerte, basados en estándares pertinentes y sistemas de control específicos, y medidas de protección de las claves criptográficas mediante las que se cifran los datos en función de los resultados de los procesos aprobados de clasificación de datos y evaluación de riesgos relacionados con las TIC;
|
|
e)
|
aplicar políticas, procedimientos y controles documentados para la gestión de los cambios en las TIC, incluidos los cambios en el software, el hardware, los componentes de firmware, los sistemas o los parámetros de seguridad, que se basen en un enfoque de evaluación de riesgos y formen parte integrante del proceso general de gestión de cambios de la entidad financiera, a fin de garantizar que todos los cambios en los sistemas de TIC se registren, sometan a prueba, evalúen, aprueben, apliquen y verifiquen de forma controlada;
|
|
f)
|
contar con políticas documentadas adecuadas y globales para los parches y actualizaciones.
|
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra b), las entidades financieras diseñarán la infraestructura de conexión a la red de manera que permita su ruptura o segmentación instantánea con el fin de minimizar y prevenir el contagio, especialmente en los procesos financieros interconectados.
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra e), el proceso de gestión de cambios en las TIC será aprobado por los niveles directivos adecuados y dispondrá de protocolos específicos.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Responsabilidad del responsable del tratamiento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 17 Sistema de gestión de la calidad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 Gobernanza y organización
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 5 Gobernanza y organización
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 9 Protección y prevención
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 16 Marco simplificado de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 5 1
1. A fin lograr un nivel elevado de resiliencia operativa digital, las entidades financieras dispondrán de un marco interno de gobernanza y control que garantice una gestión efectiva y prudente del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, de conformidad con el artículo 6, apartado 4.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 16 1
1. Los artículos 5 a 15 del presente Reglamento no se aplicarán a las empresas de servicios de inversión pequeñas y no interconectadas ni a las entidades de pago exentas en virtud de la Directiva (UE) 2015/2366; ni a las entidades exentas en virtud de la Directiva 2013/36/UE respecto de las cuales los Estados miembros hayan decidido no aplicar la opción a que se refiere el artículo 2, apartado 4, del presente Reglamento, ni a las entidades de dinero electrónico exentas en virtud de la Directiva 2009/110/CE; ni a los fondos de pensiones de empleo pequeños.
Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el párrafo primero, las entidades enumeradas en el párrafo primero deberán:
|
a)
|
crear y mantener un marco de gestión sólido y documentado de riesgos relacionados con las TIC en el que se detallen los mecanismos y las medidas encaminados a procurar una gestión rápida, efectiva y global del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, incluida la protección de las infraestructuras y los componentes físicos pertinentes;
|
|
b)
|
supervisar de manera permanente la seguridad y el funcionamiento de todos los sistemas de TIC;
|
|
c)
|
minimizar las consecuencias del riesgo relacionado con las TIC mediante el uso de sistemas, protocolos y herramientas de TIC sólidos, resilientes y actualizados que sean apropiados para sustentar el desempeño de sus actividades y la prestación de servicios y para proteger adecuadamente la disponibilidad, autenticidad, integridad y confidencialidad de los datos en las redes y sistemas de información;
|
|
d)
|
permitir que las fuentes de riesgo relacionado con las TIC y las anomalías en las redes y sistemas de información se identifiquen y detecten de inmediato y que los incidentes relacionados con las TIC se gestionen con rapidez;
|
|
e)
|
identificar dependencias clave de proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC;
|
|
f)
|
garantizar la continuidad de las funciones esenciales o importantes mediante planes de continuidad de la actividad y medidas de respuesta y recuperación que incluyan, al menos, medidas de respaldo y restablecimiento de datos;
|
|
g)
|
someter a pruebas periódicas los planes y medidas a que se refiere la letra f), así como la eficacia de los controles llevados a cabo de conformidad con las letras a) y c);
|
|
h)
|
aplicar, según proceda, las conclusiones operativas pertinentes resultantes de las pruebas a que se refiere la letra g) y de los análisis tras incidentes al proceso de evaluación del riesgo relacionado con las TIC y desarrollar, de acuerdo con las necesidades y el perfil de riesgo de TIC, programas de sensibilización en materia de seguridad de las TIC y formación en materia de resiliencia operativa digital para el personal y la dirección.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 16 2
2. El marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el apartado 1, párrafo segundo, letra a), se documentará y revisará periódicamente y cuando se produzcan incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC, de conformidad con las instrucciones de supervisión. Se mejorará continuamente sobre la base de las enseñanzas derivadas de la aplicación y el seguimiento. Se presentará a la autoridad competente cuando esta lo solicite un informe sobre la revisión del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 95 Gestión de los riesgos operativos y de seguridad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 97 Autenticación
-
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
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
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Lack of a security-minded workforce |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-01.02B |
|
is blocked by
|
GOV-02 Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
PM-01 Information Security Program Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.15.01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
GV GOVERN |
|
blocks
|
GV.RM-01 Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders |
|
blocks
|
GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes |
|
blocks
|
GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually … |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational … |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored … |
|
blocks
|
ID.RA Risk Assessment |
|
blocks
|
PR PROTECT |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR Technology Infrastructure Resilience |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|