+Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
---+Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Vendor due diligence checklist ∙ Third-party security questionnaire (e.g., CAIQ, SIG)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vendor security questionnaire (CAIQ or SIG) ∙ Third-party risk assessment prior to outsourcing
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Third-party risk management program ∙ Vendor security assessments with contractual security obligations ∙ Contract security requirements for outsourced functions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Third-party risk management (TPRM) program ∙ Vendor SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification requirements ∙ Contractual security and compliance obligations
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise TPRM program with automated vendor risk assessment ∙ Third-party risk ratings (e.g., BitSight, SecurityScorecard) ∙ Contractual oversight and audit rights for outsourced functions
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.
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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. Resumen
| Título |
Estándar |
|
Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify non-core IT functions suitable for outsourcing (e.g., email hosting)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented list of outsourced non-essential functions with security requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Outsourcing decisions aligned with business strategy and risk assessment ∙ Security requirements in outsourcing contracts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Sourcing strategy identifying outsourceable non-essential functions ∙ Third-party risk assessment before outsourcing ∙ Contractual security requirements
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sourcing governance aligned with business strategy and C-SCRM ∙ Outsourcing risk assessments and regulatory notifications where required
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
Level 3 Well Defined
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
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 28 1
1. Las entidades financieras gestionarán el riesgo relacionado con las TIC derivado de terceros como un elemento integrante del riesgo relacionado con las TIC dentro de su marco de gestión del riesgo relacionado con las TIC a que se refiere el artículo 6, apartado 1, y de conformidad con los principios siguientes:
|
a)
|
las entidades financieras que tengan acuerdos contractuales en vigor para utilizar servicios de TIC en el funcionamiento de sus operaciones comerciales serán, en todo momento, plenamente responsables del cumplimiento y observancia de todas las obligaciones con arreglo al presente Reglamento y al Derecho aplicable en materia de servicios financieros;
|
|
b)
|
las entidades financieras gestionarán el riesgo relacionado con las TIC derivado de terceros con arreglo al principio de proporcionalidad, teniendo en cuenta:
|
i)
|
la naturaleza, la escala, la complejidad y la importancia de las dependencias con respecto a las TIC,
|
|
ii)
|
los riesgos derivados de los acuerdos contractuales sobre el uso de servicios de TIC celebrados con proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC, teniendo en cuenta el carácter esencial o la importancia del servicio, el proceso o la función de que se trate, y la repercusión potencial en la continuidad y la disponibilidad de las actividades y los servicios financieros, a escala particular y de grupo.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 29 2
2. Cuando el acuerdo contractual sobre el uso de servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes incluya la posibilidad de que un proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC subcontrate a su vez servicios de TIC que sustenten una función esencial o importante a otros proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC, las entidades financieras ponderarán los beneficios y los riesgos que puedan derivarse de esa posible subcontratación, en particular cuando se trate de un subcontratista de TIC establecido en un tercer país.
Cuando el acuerdo contractual afecte a servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes, las entidades financieras ponderarán debidamente las disposiciones legislativas en materia de insolvencia que se aplicarían en caso de quiebra del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, así como cualquier restricción que pueda surgir y que afecte a la recuperación urgente de los datos de la entidad financiera.
Cuando se celebren acuerdos contractuales sobre el uso de servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes con un proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC establecido en un tercer país, las entidades financieras tendrán en consideración, además de lo mencionado el párrafo segundo, el cumplimiento de la normativa en materia de protección de datos de la Unión y la aplicación efectiva del Derecho en ese tercer país.
Cuando el acuerdo contractual sobre el uso de servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes contemple la subcontratación, las entidades financieras evaluarán si las cadenas de subcontratación potencialmente largas o complejas pueden afectar a su capacidad para efectuar un seguimiento completo de las funciones contratadas y a la capacidad de la autoridad competente para supervisar efectivamente a la entidad financiera a este respecto, y de qué manera.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 1
1. Los derechos y obligaciones de la entidad financiera y del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC estarán claramente asignados y establecidos por escrito. El contrato completo incluirá los acuerdos de nivel de servicio y se formalizará en un documento escrito que estará a disposición de las partes en papel, o en un documento en otro formato descargable, duradero y accesible.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 2
2. Los acuerdos contractuales sobre el uso de servicios de TIC incluirán, como mínimo, los elementos siguientes:
|
a)
|
una descripción clara y completa de todas las funciones y los servicios de TIC que deba prestar el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC en la que se indique si está permitida la subcontratación de un servicio de TIC que sustente una función esencial o importante, o partes sustanciales de ellas, y, en caso afirmativo, las condiciones aplicables a dicha subcontratación;
|
|
b)
|
los lugares, en concreto, las regiones o países, en los que deberán proporcionarse las funciones y los servicios de TIC contratados o subcontratados y en los que deberán tratarse los datos, incluido el lugar de almacenamiento, y el requisito de que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC notifique por adelantado a la entidad financiera cualquier cambio previsto de dichos lugares;
|
|
c)
|
disposiciones sobre disponibilidad, autenticidad, integridad y confidencialidad en relación con la protección de los datos, incluidos los datos personales;
|
|
d)
|
disposiciones sobre las garantías de la entidad financiera de poder acceder a los datos personales y no personales tratados y de poder recuperarlos y que le sean devueltos en un formato fácilmente accesible en caso de insolvencia, resolución o interrupción de las operaciones comerciales del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC o en caso de terminación de los acuerdos contractuales;
|
|
e)
|
descripciones del nivel de servicio, incluidas sus actualizaciones y revisiones;
|
|
f)
|
la obligación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC de prestar asistencia a la entidad financiera sin coste adicional, o a un coste determinado con anterioridad, cuando se produzca un incidente de TIC relacionado con el servicio de TIC prestado a la entidad financiera;
|
|
g)
|
la obligación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC de cooperar plenamente con las autoridades competentes y las autoridades de resolución de la entidad financiera, incluidas las personas nombradas por ellas;
|
|
h)
|
los derechos de terminación y los correspondientes plazos mínimos de notificación para la terminación de los acuerdos contractuales, conforme a las expectativas de las autoridades competentes y las autoridades de resolución;
|
|
i)
|
las condiciones para la participación de proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC en los programas de sensibilización en materia de seguridad de las TIC y en las actividades de formación sobre resiliencia operativa digital de las entidades financieras, de conformidad con el artículo 13, apartado 6.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 3
3. Además de los elementos a que se refiere el apartado 2, los acuerdos contractuales sobre el uso de servicios de TIC que sustenten funciones esenciales o importantes incluirán por lo menos lo siguiente:
|
a)
|
descripciones completas del nivel de servicio, incluidas sus actualizaciones y revisiones, con objetivos precisos de rendimiento cuantitativos y cualitativos dentro de los niveles de servicio acordados, de modo que la entidad financiera pueda realizar un seguimiento efectivo de los servicios de TIC y que se puedan adoptar sin demora indebida las medidas correctoras adecuadas cuando no se alcancen los niveles de servicio acordados;
|
|
b)
|
plazos de notificación y obligaciones de información del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC a la entidad financiera, incluida la notificación de cualquier hecho que pueda afectar considerablemente a la capacidad del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC para prestar de forma efectiva los servicios de TIC que sustentan funciones esenciales o importantes de conformidad con los niveles de servicio acordados;
|
|
c)
|
requisitos para que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC aplique y someta apruebe los planes de contingencia empresarial y disponga de medidas, herramientas y políticas de seguridad de las TIC que proporcionen un nivel adecuado de seguridad para la prestación de servicios por parte de la entidad financiera en consonancia con su marco regulador;
|
|
d)
|
la obligación de que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC participe y coopere plenamente en las pruebas de penetración basadas en amenazas de la entidad financiera a que se refieren los artículos 26 y 27;
|
|
e)
|
el derecho a realizar un seguimiento continuo de la actuación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, lo que implica lo siguiente:
|
i)
|
derechos ilimitados de acceso, inspección y auditoría por la entidad financiera o un tercero designado, y por la autoridad competente, y el derecho a hacer copias de la documentación pertinente in situ si son esenciales para las operaciones del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, cuyo ejercicio efectivo no se vea obstaculizado o limitado por otros acuerdos contractuales o políticas de aplicación,
|
|
ii)
|
el derecho a pactar niveles de garantía alternativos si se ven afectados los derechos de otros clientes,
|
|
iii)
|
la obligación de que el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC coopere plenamente durante las inspecciones y las auditorías in situ realizadas por las autoridades competentes, el supervisor principal, la entidad financiera o un tercero designado, y
|
|
iv)
|
la obligación de proporcionar detalles sobre el alcance, los procedimientos que deben seguirse y la frecuencia de tales inspecciones y auditorías;
|
|
|
f)
|
estrategias de salida, en particular el establecimiento de un período transitorio suficiente obligatorio:
|
i)
|
durante el cual el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC seguirá proporcionando las funciones o los servicios de TIC de que se trate con el fin de reducir el riesgo de perturbación en la entidad financiera o de garantizar su resolución y reestructuración efectivas,
|
|
ii)
|
que permita a la entidad financiera migrar a otro proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC o adoptar soluciones internas coherentes con la complejidad del servicio prestado.
|
|
Como excepción a lo dispuesto en la letra e), el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC y la entidad financiera que sea una microempresa podrán acordar que se puedan delegar los derechos de acceso, inspección y auditoría de la entidad financiera en un tercero independiente, designado por el proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC, y que la entidad financiera pueda solicitar al tercero en cualquier momento información y garantías sobre la actuación del proveedor tercero de servicios de TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 30 4
4. Al negociar acuerdos contractuales, las entidades financieras y los proveedores terceros de servicios de TIC considerarán el uso de cláusulas contractuales tipo elaboradas por las autoridades públicas para servicios específicos.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 21 Medidas para la gestión de riesgos de ciberseguridad
-
|
Incidencias vinculadas
Vínculos
| Tipo de vínculo |
Incidencia |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
relative Control Weighting = 07 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-05 Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations – Assessment Procedure |
- 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.
|