+Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans
---+Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans

Description

Mechanisms exist for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic business continuity plan
∙ Regular data backup

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

∙ Business continuity plan
∙ Tested backup and restore procedures

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

∙ Formal BCP/DRP program
∙ Regular backup testing
∙ Alternate processing capability

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

∙ Enterprise BCP/DRP program
∙ DR site
∙ Annual exercises
∙ RTO/RPO targets

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

∙ Enterprise BC/DR platform (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Enterprise)
∙ Dedicated DR site
∙ Automated failover
∙ Annual DR exercises

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 develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.

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 for process owners to establish and maintain formal Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) plans to ensure information is detailed enough, accurate and representative of current operations in order to sustain and/or restore operations under adverse conditions.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Recovery Time / Point Objectives (RTO / RPO)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

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)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs)
∙ Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

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 recovery operations in accordance with Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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.

1.1 Referencias

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Regulaciones relacionadas

Regulaciones
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 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 24 1

1.   A fin de evaluar el estado de preparación para gestionar incidentes relacionados con las TIC, o de detectar debilidades, deficiencias y carencias en materia de resiliencia operativa digital y de aplicar sin demora medidas correctoras, las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas establecerán, mantendrán y revisarán, teniendo en cuenta los criterios establecidos en el artículo 4, apartado 2, un programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital sólido y completo que forme parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6.
EULAW Artículo 24 2

2.   El programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital incluirá una serie de evaluaciones, pruebas, métodos, prácticas y herramientas que se aplicarán de conformidad con los artículos 25 y 26.
EULAW Artículo 24 3

3.   Al llevar a cabo el programa de pruebas de resiliencia operativa digital a que se refiere el apartado 1 del presente artículo, las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas seguirán un enfoque basado en el riesgo que tengan en cuenta los criterios establecidos en el artículo 4, apartado 2, considerando debidamente el panorama cambiante del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, todo riesgo específico al que la entidad financiera de que se trate esté o pueda estar expuesta, el carácter esencial de los activos de información y de los servicios prestados, así como cualquier otro factor que la entidad financiera considere apropiado.
EULAW Artículo 24 4

4.   Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas garantizarán que las pruebas sean realizadas por partes independientes, ya sean internas o externas. Cuando un probador interno se encargue de realizar las pruebas, las entidades financieras dedicarán recursos suficientes y garantizarán que se evitan los conflictos de intereses durante todas las fases de constitución y ejecución de las pruebas.
EULAW Artículo 24 5

5.   Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas establecerán procedimientos y políticas para ordenar por prioridades, clasificar y corregir todos los problemas descubiertos durante la realización de las pruebas y establecerán métodos de validación internos para asegurarse de que todas las debilidades, deficiencias o carencias sean tratadas de manera exhaustiva.
EULAW Artículo 24 6

6.   Las entidades financieras que no sean microempresas garantizarán, al menos una vez al año, que se efectúen las pruebas apropiadas de todos los sistemas y aplicaciones de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes.
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 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 26 Planes de respuesta y recuperación en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-
EULAW Artículo 39 Componentes del plan de continuidad de la actividad en materia de TIC
-

Incidencias vinculadas

Vínculos
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 06
is related to Process
is related to Recover
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
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 Incident Persistence / Recurrence
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 Quarterly
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Protect
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
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 Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Concentration / Single-Point 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 Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by BCD-04 Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) Plans – Assessment Procedure
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

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

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

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

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

    Terms & Conditions

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