+Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation
---+Periodic Review & Update of Security, Compliance & Resilience Program
---+Exception Management
---+Periodic Review of Exceptions
|
Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ Shared drive or intranet for policy distribution (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint Online)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com) ∙ Document management system (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence, Notion)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Document management / intranet portal (e.g., SharePoint, Confluence) ∙ Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., KnowBe4, Absorb LMS)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Policy management platform ∙ Version-controlled policy repository with access controls ∙ Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com) ∙ Enterprise policy management platform ∙ Integrated GRC policy module with automated review workflows ∙ Enterprise-wide policy acknowledgement and training integration
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented. ▪ No formal cybersecurity and/or data protection principles are identified for the organization. ▪ Informal recommendations are leveraged to update existing policies and standards. ▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities. ▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures). ▪ People affected by documentation changes are provided notification of the policy and standard changes.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework). ▪ The organization's cybersecurity policies and standards are made available to internal personnel. ▪ Documented procedures exist for requesting a deviation from approved standards. ▪ The responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation is assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians.
Level 3 Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish, maintain and disseminate policies, standards and procedures necessary for secure, compliant and resilient capabilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Resumen
| Título |
Estándar |
|
Periodic Review & Update of Security, Compliance & Resilience Program
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to review the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP), including policies, standards and procedures, at planned intervals or if significant changes occur to ensure their continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual human reviews of policies and procedures ∙ Documentation change control (version history in document) ∙ Calendar reminders for review cycles
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual human reviews with documented review log ∙ Documentation change control with version history ∙ Defined policy review and approval process
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Documented review cycle (minimum annual) with ownership assignment ∙ Change control process with approval workflows ∙ Document management system with review reminders (e.g., SharePoint, PolicyTech)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formalized policy lifecycle management (create, review, retire) ∙ Automated review reminders via policy management platform ∙ GRC-integrated documentation change control ∙ Triggered reviews for significant regulatory or organizational changes
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise policy lifecycle management integrated with GRC platform ∙ Automated review workflows with escalation paths ∙ Regulatory change monitoring integrated with policy review triggers ∙ Audit-ready documentation of all policy changes and approvals
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel perform an annual documentation review process that includes the scope of applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations. ▪ Recommendations for documentation edits are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with documentation change control processes. ▪ Updated documentation versions are published, based on no less than an annual review cycle.
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 review the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP), including policies, standards and procedures, at planned intervals or if significant changes occur to ensure their continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
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.
|
|
Exception Management
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Manual exception management process ∙ Documented exception request form (Word/PDF template) ∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Manual exception management process ∙ Formalized exception request and approval workflow ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Documented exception management process with approval authority matrix ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Risk acceptance tracking with time-bound exceptions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal exception management program with defined risk acceptance criteria ∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Time-limited exceptions with mandatory compensating controls ∙ Periodic exception review and recertification process
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise exception management program integrated with GRC platform ∙ Automated exception workflows with defined approval chains ∙ Exception-to-risk register linkage with ongoing monitoring ∙ Audit-ready exception documentation and closure tracking
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy governance practices are informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
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 prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
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.
|
|
Periodic Review of Exceptions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to: (1) Periodically review previously-approved exceptions; and (2) Determine if the exception should be allowed to continue based on evolving risks and threats.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Manual annual review of the exception log ∙ Documented exception request form with expiration date
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual exception review with documented continue/close decision ∙ Exception register (spreadsheet or GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.))
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Time-bound exceptions with mandatory recertification ∙ Exception review tied to the risk register
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) ∙ Time-limited exceptions with automated recertification reminders ∙ Exception review and recertification process owned by the risk function
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise exception management program integrated with GRC platform ∙ Automated exception expiration and recertification workflows ∙ Exception-to-risk register linkage with ongoing monitoring ∙ Audit-ready exception review records
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel perform internal assessments of cybersecurity and data protection controls to determine compliance status. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to notify stakeholders about audit activities to minimize the impact of audit/assessment activities on business operations.
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).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Regulaciones relacionadas
Regulaciones
| Fuente |
Regulación |
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 5 2
2. El órgano de dirección de la entidad financiera definirá, aprobará y supervisará todas las disposiciones relacionadas con el marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, y será responsable de su aplicación.
A efectos del párrafo primero, el órgano de dirección:
|
a)
|
asumirá la responsabilidad última de gestionar el riesgo relacionado con las TIC de la entidad financiera;
|
|
b)
|
adoptará políticas encaminadas a garantizar el mantenimiento de unos niveles elevados de disponibilidad, autenticidad, integridad y confidencialidad de los datos;
|
|
c)
|
definirá claramente los cometidos y responsabilidades por lo que respecta a todas las funciones relacionadas con las TIC y establecerá mecanismos de gobernanza adecuados para garantizar una comunicación, cooperación y coordinación efectivas y oportunas entre dichas funciones;
|
|
d)
|
asumirá la responsabilidad general de establecer y aprobar la estrategia de resiliencia operativa digital a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 8, lo que incluye determinar el nivel adecuado de tolerancia al riesgo relacionado con las TIC de la entidad financiera a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 8, letra b);
|
|
e)
|
aprobará, supervisará y revisará periódicamente la aplicación de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y de los planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC de la entidad financiera a que se refiere, respectivamente, el artículo 11 apartados 1 y 3, que podrán ser adoptados como una política específica que forme parte integrante de la política global de continuidad de la actividad y del plan de respuesta y recuperación de la entidad financiera;
|
|
f)
|
aprobará y revisará periódicamente los planes de auditoría internos de TIC y las auditorías de TIC de la entidad financiera, así como sus modificaciones significativas;
|
|
g)
|
asignará y revisará periódicamente el presupuesto adecuado para satisfacer las necesidades de resiliencia operativa digital de la entidad financiera con respecto a todos los tipos de recursos, incluidos los programas de sensibilización en materia de seguridad de las TIC y las actividades de formación sobre resiliencia operativa digital pertinentes a que se refiere el artículo 13, apartado 6, y las capacidades en materia de TIC para todo el personal;
|
|
h)
|
aprobará y revisará periódicamente la política de la entidad financiera sobre los acuerdos relativos al uso de servicios de TIC prestados por proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC;
|
|
i)
|
establecerá, a escala corporativa, canales de comunicación que le permitan estar debidamente informado de lo siguiente:
|
i)
|
de los acuerdos celebrados con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC sobre el uso de servicios de TIC,
|
|
ii)
|
de cualquier cambio sustancial pertinente previsto en relación con los proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC,
|
|
iii)
|
de las posibles repercusiones de tales cambios en las funciones esenciales o importantes reguladas por dichos acuerdos, incluido un resumen del análisis de riesgos para evaluar las repercusiones de dichos cambios, y al menos de los incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC y sus repercusiones, así como de las medidas de respuesta, recuperación y corrección.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 5 3
3. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas crearán un cargo para el seguimiento de los acuerdos celebrados con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC sobre el uso de servicios de TIC o designarán a un miembro de la alta dirección como responsable de supervisar la exposición al riesgo correspondiente y la documentación pertinente.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 2 Elementos generales de las políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas en materia de seguridad de las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 2 Elementos generales de las políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas en materia de seguridad de las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 2 Elementos generales de las políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas en materia de seguridad de las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 2 Elementos generales de las políticas, procedimientos, protocolos y herramientas en materia de seguridad de las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 Gobernanza y organización
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 29 Política y medidas de seguridad de la información
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 29 Política y medidas de seguridad de la información
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 6 Marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 9 Protección y prevención
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Responsabilidad del responsable del tratamiento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
|
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.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
People |
|
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
|
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 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
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
|
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
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.01B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
OIS-02.03B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.03B |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
SP-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
HR-07.01B |
|
blocks
|
AM-05.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-10.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-19.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-27.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-30.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-32.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-34.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
IAM-08.04B |
|
blocks
|
CRY-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
COS-08.01B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-03.01B |
|
blocks
|
DEV-14.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
INQ-04.03B |
|
is blocked by
|
GOV-04 Publishing Security, Compliance & Resilience Documentation – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PM-01 Information Security Program Plan |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PT-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PE-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PS-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SC-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SR-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AC-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AT-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
AU-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CM-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
IR-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
MP-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PL-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
PT-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
RA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
SI-01 [P] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
03.15.01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
GV.PO Policy |
|
blocks
|
GV.PO-01 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated … |
|
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
|
ID.RA Risk Assessment |
- 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.
|