+Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
---+Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
Description
Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define. Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Resumen
| Título |
Estándar |
|
Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define operational resilience requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to operate in a controlled and acceptable manner during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO for critical systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO/MTD for critical systems ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Documented resilience requirements per system in the CMDB
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, Castellan) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture and backup design
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise operational resilience program (e.g., aligned with ISO 22301 and DORA) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, ServiceNow BCM) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture, backup and failover design ∙ Annual requirements recertification
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services. ▪ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and/or Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) are not formally planned for or resourced to meet.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
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 8 4
4. Las entidades financieras identificarán todos los activos de información y activos de TIC, incluidos los que se encuentren en emplazamientos remotos, recursos de red y equipos de hardware, y cartografiarán aquellos considerados esenciales. Cartografiarán la configuración de los activos de información y activos de TIC y los vínculos e interdependencias entre los distintos activos de información y activos de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 24 Componentes de la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 Gobernanza y organización
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 28 Gobernanza y organización
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 Respuesta y recuperación
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 12 Políticas y procedimientos de respaldo y procedimientos y métodos de restablecimiento y recuperación
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 32 Seguridad del tratamiento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 1
1. Como parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, y sobre la base de los requisitos de identificación establecidos en el artículo 8, las entidades financieras pondrán en práctica una política global de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC, que podrá ser adoptada como una política específica propia que forme parte integrante de la política global de continuidad de la actividad de la entidad financiera.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 2
2. Las entidades financieras aplicarán la política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC mediante disposiciones, planes, procedimientos y mecanismos específicos, adecuados y documentados destinados a:
|
a)
|
garantizar la continuidad de las funciones esenciales o importantes de la entidad financiera;
|
|
b)
|
responder a todos los incidentes relacionados con las TIC y resolverlos rápida, adecuada y eficazmente de manera que se limiten los daños y se dé prioridad a la reanudación de las actividades y a las acciones de recuperación;
|
|
c)
|
activar, sin demora, planes específicos que permitan recurrir a medidas de contención, procesos y tecnologías adaptados a cada tipo de incidente relacionado con las TIC y que eviten nuevos daños, así como a procedimientos de respuesta y recuperación adaptados establecidos de conformidad con el artículo 12;
|
|
d)
|
estimar con carácter preliminar las repercusiones, daños y pérdidas;
|
|
e)
|
definir acciones de comunicación y gestión de crisis que garanticen la transmisión de información actualizada a todo el personal interno y las partes interesadas externas pertinentes de conformidad con el artículo 14, y su notificación a las autoridades competentes de conformidad con el artículo 19.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 3
3. Como parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, las entidades financieras aplicarán planes conexos de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC que, en el caso de entidades financieras que no sean microempresas, estarán sujetos a auditorías internas independientes.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 4
4. Las entidades financieras establecerán, mantendrán y someterán a prueba periódicamente planes adecuados de continuidad de las actividades de TIC, en particular en lo que se refiere a las funciones esenciales o importantes externalizadas o contratadas mediante acuerdos con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 5
5. Como parte de la política global de continuidad de la actividad, las entidades financieras llevarán a cabo un análisis de impacto en el negocio de sus exposiciones a perturbaciones graves de la actividad. En el marco de dicho análisis, las entidades financieras evaluarán el impacto potencial de las perturbaciones graves de la actividad mediante criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos, utilizando datos internos y externos y análisis de escenarios, según proceda. El análisis de impacto en el negocio tendrá en cuenta el carácter esencial de las funciones empresariales identificadas y cartografiadas, los procesos de apoyo, las dependencias de terceros y los activos de información, así como sus interdependencias. Las entidades financieras garantizarán que los activos de TIC y los servicios de TIC se diseñen y utilicen en plena consonancia con el análisis de impacto en el negocio, en particular en lo que se refiere a garantizar adecuadamente la redundancia de todos los componentes esenciales.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 6
6. Como parte de su gestión global del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras:
|
a)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de continuidad de la actividad y los planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC en relación con los sistemas de TIC que sustenten todas las funciones al menos una vez al año, así como en caso de que se produzca cualquier cambio sustancial en los sistemas de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes;
|
|
b)
|
someterán a prueba los planes de comunicación en caso de crisis establecidos de conformidad con el artículo 14.
|
A efectos del párrafo primero, letra a), las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas incluirán, en los planes de pruebas, escenarios de ciberataques y de conmutación entre la infraestructura primaria de TIC y la capacidad redundante, las copias de seguridad y las instalaciones redundantes necesarias para cumplir con las obligaciones establecidas en el artículo 12.
Las entidades financieras revisarán periódicamente su política de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y sus planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC teniendo en cuenta los resultados de las pruebas realizadas de conformidad con el párrafo primero y las recomendaciones derivadas de los controles de auditoría o las revisiones supervisoras.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 7
7. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas dispondrán de una función de gestión de crisis que, en caso de activación de sus planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC o de sus planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC, establecerá, entre otros, procedimientos claros para gestionar las comunicaciones de crisis internas y externas de conformidad con el artículo 14.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 8
8. Las entidades financieras mantendrán registros fácilmente accesibles de las actividades antes de las perturbaciones y durante estas cuando se activen sus planes de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC y sus planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 9
9. Los depositarios centrales de valores facilitarán a las autoridades competentes copias de los resultados de las pruebas de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC, o de ejercicios similares.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 10
10. Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas informarán a las autoridades competentes, si estas lo solicitan, una estimación de los costes y pérdidas anuales agregados causados por incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 11 11
11. De conformidad con el artículo 16 del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1093/2010, el artículo 16 del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1094/2010 y el artículo 16 del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1095/2010, las Autoridades Europeas de Supervisión, a través del Comité Mixto, elaborarán, a más tardar el 17 de julio de 2024, directrices comunes sobre la estimación de los costes y pérdidas anuales agregados a que se refiere el apartado 10.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 12 1
1. Con el fin de garantizar el restablecimiento de los sistemas de TIC y los datos con un tiempo mínimo de inactividad y una perturbación y pérdida limitadas, como parte de su marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras desarrollarán y documentarán:
|
a)
|
políticas y procedimientos de respaldo que especifiquen el alcance de los datos objeto de respaldo y la frecuencia mínima de este, en función del carácter esencial de la información o del nivel de confidencialidad de los datos;
|
|
b)
|
procedimientos y métodos de restablecimiento y recuperación.
|
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Recover |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
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
|
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
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
blocks
|
Data Destruction |
|
blocks
|
Data Encrypted for Impact |
|
blocks
|
Inhibit System Recovery |
|
blocks
|
Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Internal Defacement |
|
blocks
|
External Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Disk Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Content Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Structure Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
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
|
Civil or Political Unrest |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Hazardous Materials Emergencies |
|
blocks
|
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons |
|
blocks
|
Physical Crime |
|
blocks
|
Terrorism & Armed Attacks |
|
blocks
|
Utility Service Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Infrastructure Failure / Degradation |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
PS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-21.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-06.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-03.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
BCD-02 Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
IR-04(03) Continuity of Operations |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [L] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [L] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [M] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [M] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [H] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [H] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 [P] Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-04 Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-02 The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-03 Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations |
|
blocks
|
RS.MA-05 The criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied |
|
blocks
|
RC RECOVER |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP Incident Recovery Plan Execution |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-02 Recovery actions are selected, scoped, prioritized, and performed |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-04 Critical mission functions and cybersecurity risk management are considered to establish post-incident operational norms |
- 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.
|