+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments

Incident Response Training

Description

Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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
Simulated Incidents

Description

Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.

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.
Automated Incident Response Training Environments

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 automatically provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.

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 14 1

1.   Como parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, las entidades financieras dispondrán de planes de comunicación de crisis que permitan la divulgación responsable de, al menos, los incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC o las vulnerabilidades importantes a clientes y contrapartes, así como al público, según proceda.

EULAW Artículo 14 2

2.   Como parte del marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, las entidades financieras aplicarán políticas de comunicación destinadas al personal interno y a las partes interesadas externas. Las políticas de comunicación destinadas al personal tendrán en cuenta la necesidad de diferenciar entre el personal que participa en la gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC, en particular el personal responsable de la respuesta y la recuperación, y el personal al que es necesario informar.

EULAW Artículo 14 3

3.   Al menos una persona de la entidad financiera se encargará de aplicar la estrategia de comunicación sobre incidentes relacionados con las TIC y desempeñará a tal efecto la función de portavoz ante el público y los medios de comunicación.

EULAW Artículo 19 1

1.   Las entidades financieras notificarán los incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC a la autoridad competente pertinente a que se refiere el artículo 46, de conformidad con el apartado 4 del presente artículo.

Cuando una entidad financiera sea supervisada por más de una autoridad nacional competente contemplada en el artículo 46, los Estados miembros designarán a una única autoridad competente autoridad competente pertinente responsable del desempeño de las funciones y tareas establecidas en el presente artículo.

Las entidades de crédito clasificadas como significativas de conformidad con el artículo 6, apartado 4, del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1024/2013 notificarán los incidentes graves relacionados con las TIC a la autoridad nacional competente pertinente designada con arreglo al artículo 4 de la Directiva 2013/36/UE, que transmitirá dicho informe de forma inmediata al BCE.

A los efectos del párrafo primero, tras recopilar y analizar toda la información pertinente, las entidades financieras elaborarán la notificación inicial y los informes a que se refiere el apartado 4 del presente artículo mediante la plantilla a que se refiere el artículo 20 y los presentarán a la autoridad competente. En caso de que un impedimento técnico haga imposible la presentación de la notificación inicial mediante la plantilla, las entidades financieras presentarán la notificación a la autoridad competente por medios alternativos.

La notificación inicial y los informes a que hace referencia el apartado 4 incluirán toda la información necesaria para que la autoridad competente pueda determinar la importancia del incidente grave relacionado con las TIC y evaluar sus posibles efectos transfronterizos.

Sin perjuicio de la notificación en virtud del párrafo primero por parte de la entidad financiera a la autoridad competente pertinente, los Estados miembros podrán determinar de manera adicional que algunas entidades financieras, o todas ellas, presenten también la notificación inicial y cada uno de los informes a que se refiere el apartado 4 del presente artículo, utilizando las plantillas mencionadas en el artículo 20, a las autoridades competentes o a los equipos de respuesta a incidentes de seguridad informática (CSIRT), designados o establecidos de conformidad con la Directiva (UE) 2022/2555.

EULAW Artículo 19 2

2.   Las entidades financieras podrán notificar, de manera voluntaria, ciberamenazas importantes a la autoridad competente pertinente cuando consideren que la amenaza es pertinente para el sistema financiero, los usuarios del servicio o los clientes. La autoridad competente pertinente podrá transmitir esta información a otras autoridades pertinentes mencionadas en el apartado 6.

Las entidades de crédito clasificadas como significativas de conformidad con el artículo 6, apartado 4, del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1024/2013 podrán, de manera voluntaria, notificar las ciberamenazas importantes a la autoridad nacional competente pertinente designada con arreglo al artículo 4 de la Directiva 2013/36/UE, que transmitirá dicho informe de forma inmediata al BCE.

Los Estados miembros podrán determinar que las entidades financieras que notifiquen voluntariamente de conformidad con el párrafo primero puedan también transmitir dicha notificación a los CSIRT designados o establecidos de conformidad con la Directiva (UE) 2022/2555.

EULAW Artículo 19 3

3.   Cuando se produzca un incidente grave relacionado con las TIC y tenga consecuencias para los intereses financieros de los clientes, las entidades financieras informarán sin demora indebida de dicho incidente tan pronto como tengan conocimiento del mismo, a sus clientes y les comunicarán todas las medidas que se hayan adoptado para mitigar sus efectos adversos.

En caso de ciberamenaza importante, las entidades financieras informarán, cuando proceda, a aquellos de sus clientes que pudieran verse afectados de cualquier medida de protección adecuada que estos consideren oportuno adoptar.

EULAW Artículo 19 4

4.   Las entidades financieras presentarán a la autoridad competente pertinente, dentro de los plazos que se establezcan de conformidad con el artículo 20, párrafo primero, letra a), inciso ii), la siguiente información:

a)

una notificación inicial;

b)

un informe intermedio posterior a la notificación inicial a que se refiere la letra a), tan pronto como la situación del incidente original haya cambiado considerablemente o la gestión del incidente grave relacionado con las TIC haya cambiado en función de las últimas informaciones disponibles, seguido, cuando sea necesario, de notificaciones actualizadas cada vez que se disponga de una actualización pertinente de la situación, y siempre que lo solicite expresamente la autoridad competente;

c)

un informe final, cuando haya concluido el análisis de la causa subyacente, con independencia de que ya se hayan aplicado medidas paliativas, y cuando se disponga de las cifras reales de incidencia para sustituir a las estimaciones.

EULAW Artículo 19 5

5.   Las entidades financieras podrán externalizar, de conformidad con el Derecho sectorial de la Unión y nacional, las obligaciones de información establecidas en el presente artículo a un proveedor tercero de servicios. En el caso de tal externalización, la entidad financiera seguirá siendo plenamente responsable del cumplimiento de los requisitos en materia de notificación de incidentes.

EULAW Artículo 45 3

3.   Las entidades financieras notificarán a las autoridades competentes su participación en los acuerdos de intercambio de información a que se refiere el apartado 1 en el momento en que se valide su incorporación a ellos o, en su caso, el cese de su participación, una vez que se haga efectivo.

EULAW Artículo 34 Comunicación de una violación de la seguridad de los datos personales al interesado
-
EULAW Artículo 23 Obligaciones de notificación
-

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 Respond
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
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 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 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 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 SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks HR-03.03B
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks HR-03.03B
is blocked by IRO-10 Incident Response Training – Assessment Procedure
blocks IR-02 Incident Response Training
blocks IR-02(03) Breach
blocks IR-02 [L] Incident Response Training
blocks IR-02 [M] Incident Response Training
blocks IR-02 [H] Incident Response Training
blocks IR-02 [P] Incident Response Training
blocks IR-02(03) [P] Breach
blocks 03.06.04 Incident Response Training
  • 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.