+Artikkel 7 Krüptovõtmete haldamine
---+Artikkel 7 1.
---+Artikkel 7 2.
---+Artikkel 7 3.
---+Artikkel 7 4.
---+Artikkel 7 5.

Artikkel 7 Krüptovõtmete haldamine

-

1. Ülevaade

,
Artikkel 7 1.
Finantssektori ettevõtjad lisavad artikli 6 lõike 2 punktis d osutatud krüptovõtmete haldamise põhimõtetesse nõuded, mis käsitlevad krüptovõtmete haldamist kogu nende olelusringi jooksul, sealhulgas nõuded krüptovõtmete loomise, uuendamise, talletamise, varundamise, arhiveerimise, otsimise, edastamise, kasutuselt kõrvaldamise, tühistamise ja hävitamise kohta.
Artikkel 7 2.
Finantssektori ettevõtjad määravad kindlaks kontrollid, et kaitsta krüptovõtmeid kogu nende olelusringi jooksul kaotsimineku, loata juurdepääsu, avalikustamise ja muutmise eest, ning rakendavad neid kontrolle. Finantssektori ettevõtjad võtavad nende kontrollide kavandamisel aluseks heakskiidetud andmeliigituse ja IKT-riski hindamise tulemused.
Artikkel 7 3.
Finantssektori ettevõtjad töötavad välja meetodid, et krüptovõti kaotsimineku, murdmise või kahjustumise korral asendada, ja rakendavad neid.
Artikkel 7 4.
Finantssektori ettevõtjad loovad kõigi sertifikaatide ja nende säilitamise seadmete registri vähemalt kriitilise tähtsusega või olulisi funktsioone toetavate IKT-varade jaoks ja haldavad seda. Finantssektori ettevõtjad ajakohastavad seda registrit.
Artikkel 7 5.
Finantssektori ettevõtjad tagavad sertifikaatide kiire uuendamise enne nende aegumist.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
SCF Asset Inventories

Description

Mechanisms exist to perform inventories of Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) that:
(1) Accurately reflects the current TAASD in use;
(2) Identifies authorized software products, including business justification details;
(3) Is at the level of granularity deemed necessary for tracking and reporting;
(4) Includes organization-defined information deemed necessary to achieve effective property accountability; and
(5) Is available for review and audit by designated organizational personnel.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Spreadsheet-based asset inventory or Snipe-IT (free, https://snipeitapp.com)
∙ JAMF (https://jamf.com) for Apple device management
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer (https://manageengine.com)
∙ JAMF (https://jamf.com) or Microsoft Intune for device management
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer (https://manageengine.com)
∙ Ivanti (https://ivanti.com) or Microsoft Intune
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
∙ Lansweeper for network device discovery

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ ManageEngine AssetExplorer or Ivanti (https://ivanti.com)
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB) (e.g., ServiceNow, Device42)
∙ Integration with network discovery tools (e.g., Nmap, Qualys Asset Inventory)

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

∙ IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
∙ Enterprise ITAM solution (e.g., Ivanti, Snow Software, Flexera)
∙ Configuration Management Database (CMDB) (e.g., ServiceNow CMDB)
∙ Automated asset discovery integrated with vulnerability management
∙ CIS Control 1 & 2 alignment

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

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ Inventories may be manual (e.g., spreadsheets) or automated.
▪ Data/process owners for business-critical assets are documented and are reviewed as part of the annual asset inventories.
▪ Software licensing is tracked as part of IT asset inventories.
▪ No structured process exists to review or share the results of the inventories.
▪ Annual IT asset inventories validate or update stakeholders /owners.

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset 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 AST 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 perform inventories of TAASD that:
(1) Accurately reflects the current TAASD in use;
(2) Identifies authorized software products, including business justification details;
(3) Is at the level of granularity deemed necessary for tracking and reporting;
(4) Includes organization-defined information deemed necessary to achieve effective property accountability; and
(5) Is available for review and audit by designated organizational personnel.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Asset Management (AST) 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

Asset Management (AST) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
SCF Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

Description

Mechanisms exist to securely implement an internal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) infrastructure or obtain PKI services from a reputable PKI service provider.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Microsoft Cloud PKI (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Digitcert (https://digicert.com)
∙ Entrust (https://entrust.com)
∙ Vault (https://vaultproject.io)

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

∙ Microsoft Cloud PKI (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Digitcert (https://digicert.com)
∙ Entrust (https://entrust.com)
∙ Vault (https://vaultproject.io)

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

∙ Microsoft Cloud PKI (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Digitcert (https://digicert.com)
∙ Entrust (https://entrust.com)
∙ Vault (https://vaultproject.io)

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

∙ Microsoft Cloud PKI (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Digitcert (https://digicert.com)
∙ Entrust (https://entrust.com)
∙ Vault (https://vaultproject.io)

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

∙ Microsoft Cloud PKI (https://microsoft.com)
∙ Digitcert (https://digicert.com)
∙ Entrust (https://entrust.com)
∙ Vault (https://vaultproject.io)

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations.
▪ The IT department implements Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys.
▪ The IT department implements and maintains an internal PKI infrastructure or obtains PKI services from a reputable PKI service provider.
▪ The PKI infrastructure enables the secure distribution of symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic keys using industry recognized key management technology and processes.
▪ The PKI infrastructure ensures the availability of information in the event of the loss of cryptographic keys by individual users.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 securely implement an internal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) infrastructure or obtain PKI services from a reputable PKI service provider.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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.
SCF Cryptographic Key Management

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate cryptographic key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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.
SCF Cryptographic Key Management

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate cryptographic key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 cryptographic key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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.
SCF Cryptographic Key Loss or Change

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure the availability of information in the event of the loss of cryptographic keys by individual users.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 the availability of information in the event of the loss of cryptographic keys by individual users.

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.
SCF Control & Distribution of Cryptographic Keys

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the secure distribution of symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic keys using industry recognized key management technology and processes.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 secure distribution of symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic keys using industry recognized key management technology and processes.

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.
SCF Certificate Monitoring

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to discover when new certificates are issued for organization-controlled domains.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 discover when new certificates are issued for organization-controlled domains.

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.
SCF Certificate Monitoring

Description

Automated mechanisms exist to discover when new certificates are issued for organization-controlled domains.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

∙ Cryptographic governance program

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Cryptography management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

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

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool).
▪ 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 CRY 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 discover when new certificates are issued for organization-controlled domains.

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.