|
+Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) |
Safety Instrumented Function (SIF)DescriptionAutomated mechanisms exist within a Safety Instrumented System (SIS) to execute predetermined actions upon detection of a potentially hazardous event.Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ Not applicable unless hazardous processes are operatedSmall Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ Vendor-defined safety functions documented and maintained∙ Safety logic changes restricted to authorized personnel Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Safety Requirements Specification (SRS) per SIF∙ Proof testing schedule ∙ Change control for safety logic Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Functional safety lifecycle management (IEC 61511)∙ SIF configuration integrity monitoring ∙ Bypass management procedures Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise functional safety management with SIF lifecycle tooling (e.g., exSILentia)∙ Integrity monitoring and change control for safety logic solvers ∙ Formal bypass and override governance SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices 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 InformallyEmbedded Technology (EMB) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with EMB domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Embedded technology management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Embedded technologies (e.g., Operational Technology (OT) and Internet of Things (IoT) are managed in the same manner as any other technology asset. Level 2 Planned TrackedEmbedded Technology (EMB) 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 EMB domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with EMB 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 EMB domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Embedded technology-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Embedded technology management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well DefinedEmbedded Technology (EMB) 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 EMB 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 EMB domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An embedded systems team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain EMB domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of embedded technology operations (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 EMB domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledEmbedded Technology (EMB) 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 ImprovingUtilize 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. Yleiskatsaus
1.1 Viittaukset1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset1.3 Liittyvät säädökset2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
3. Liittyvät säädökset
Linkitetyt tehtävät
|