+Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
---+AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Description

Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-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 identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM 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 RSK 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 develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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. Yleiskatsaus

AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Description

Mechanisms exist to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-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 identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

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

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM 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 RSK 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 address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

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 Viittaukset

1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset

1.3 Liittyvät säädökset

2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset

Vaatimukset

3. Liittyvät säädökset

Säädökset
EULAW 17 artikla Laadunhallintajärjestelmä
-
EULAW 28 artikla Yleiset periaatteet
-
EULAW 21 artikla Kyberturvallisuusriskien hallintatoimenpiteet
-
EULAW 28 artikla Yleiset periaatteet
-
EULAW 21 artikla Kyberturvallisuusriskien hallintatoimenpiteet
-
EULAW 28 artikla 1

1.   Finanssiyhteisöjen on hallinnoitava kolmansiin osapuoliin liittyvää TVT-riskiä erottamattomana osana TVT-riskiä 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmänsä puitteissa ja seuraavien periaatteiden mukaisesti:

a)

finanssiyhteisöjen, jotka ovat tehneet sopimusjärjestelyjä TVT-palvelujen käytöstä liiketoimintojensa hoitamista varten, on aina oltava täysin vastuussa kaikkien tästä asetuksesta ja sovellettavasta finanssipalvelulainsäädännöstä johtuvien velvoitteiden noudattamisesta ja velvollisuuksien suorittamisesta;

b)

finanssiyhteisöjen kolmansiin osapuoliin liittyvän TVT-riskin hallinta on toteutettava suhteellisuusperiaatteen mukaisesti ottaen huomioon seuraavat:

i)

TVT:hen liittyvien riippuvuuksien luonne, laajuus, monitahoisuus ja tärkeys;

ii)

TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten kanssa TVT-palvelujen käytöstä tehtyihin sopimusjärjestelyihin liittyvät riskit, ottaen huomioon kyseisen palvelun, prosessin tai toiminnon kriittisyys tai tärkeys ja sen mahdollinen vaikutus finanssipalvelujen ja -toimintojen jatkuvuuteen ja käytettävyyteen sekä yksittäisten yhteisöjen että konsernien tasolla.
EULAW 28 artikla 2

2.   Finanssiyhteisöjen, jotka ovat muita kuin 16 artiklan 1 kohdan ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitettuja yhteisöjä sekä muita kuin mikroyrityksiä, on osana TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmäänsä hyväksyttävä kolmansiin osapuoliin liittyvää TVT-riskiä koskeva strategia ja tarkistettava sitä säännöllisesti, ottaen tapauksen mukaan huomioon 6 artiklan 9 kohdassa tarkoitettu usean toimittajan tarjoamien TVT-toimitusten strategia. Kolmansiin osapuoliin liittyvää TVT-riskiä koskevassa strategiassa on määriteltävä TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten tarjoamien, kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja tukevien TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevat toimintaperiaatteet, joita on sovellettava sekä yksittäisten yhteisöjen että tarvittaessa alakonsolidointiryhmien ja konsolidointiryhmien tasolla. Ylimmän hallintoelimen on finanssiyhteisön kokonaisriskiprofiilin sekä liike-elämän palvelujen laajuuden ja monitahoisuuden arvioinnin perusteella tarkasteltava säännöllisesti uudelleen havaittuja riskejä, jotka liittyvät kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja tukevien TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskeviin sopimusjärjestelyihin.
EULAW 28 artikla 3

3.   Finanssiyhteisöjen on osana TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmäänsä pidettävä yllä ja päivitettävä yhteisön tasolla sekä alakonsolidointiryhmien ja konsolidointiryhmien tasolla tietorekisteriä kaikista TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten tarjoamien TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevista sopimusjärjestelyistä.

Ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitetut sopimusjärjestelyt on dokumentoitava asianmukaisesti siten, että toisistaan erotetaan järjestelyt, jotka kattavat kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja tukevat TVT-palvelut, ja ne, jotka eivät kata näitä.

Finanssiyhteisöjen on raportoitava toimivaltaisille viranomaisille vähintään vuosittain TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevien uusien järjestelyjen määrästä, TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten ryhmistä, sopimusjärjestelyjen tyypistä ja tarjotuista TVT-palveluista ja toiminnoista.

Finanssiyhteisöjen on toimitettava toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle sen pyynnöstä tietorekisteri kokonaisuudessaan tai pyynnön mukaan sen tietyt osat sekä kaikki finanssiyhteisön tehokasta valvontaa varten tarpeellisiksi katsotut tiedot.

Finanssiyhteisöjen on ilmoitettava toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle hyvissä ajoin kaikista kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja tukevien TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevista suunnitelluista sopimusjärjestelyistä sekä siitä, että jostakin toiminnosta on tullut kriittinen tai tärkeä.
EULAW 28 artikla 4

4.   Ennen kuin finanssiyhteisöt tekevät TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevan sopimusjärjestelyn, niiden on

a)

arvioitava, kattaako sopimusjärjestely jotakin kriittistä tai tärkeää toimintoa tukevien TVT-palvelujen käytön;

b)

arvioitava, täyttyvätkö sopimuksentekoa koskevat valvontaedellytykset;

c)

määritettävä ja arvioitava kaikki sopimusjärjestelyyn liittyvät asiaankuuluvat riskit, mukaan lukien mahdollisuus, että tällainen sopimusjärjestely voi edistää 29 artiklassa tarkoitetun TVT-keskittymäriskin voimistumista;

d)

toteutettava mahdollisten TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten suhteen kaikki asianmukaista huolellisuutta koskevat menettelyt ja varmistettava koko valinta- ja arviointiprosessin ajan, että TVT-palveluntarjoajana oleva kolmas osapuoli on sopiva;

e)

määritettävä ja arvioitava sopimusjärjestelystä mahdollisesti aiheutuvat eturistiriidat.
EULAW 28 artikla 5

5.   Finanssiyhteisöt voivat tehdä sopimusjärjestelyjä vain sellaisten TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten kanssa, jotka noudattavat asianmukaisia tietoturvastandardeja. Kun kyseiset sopimusjärjestelyt koskevat kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja, finanssiyhteisöjen on ennen järjestelyjen tekemistä otettava asianmukaisesti huomioon se, miten TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevat kolmannet osapuolet käyttävät uusimpia ja korkealaatuisimpia tietoturvastandardeja.
EULAW 28 artikla 6

6.   Kun finanssiyhteisöt käyttävät TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevan kolmannen osapuolen suhteen pääsy-, tarkastus- ja auditointioikeutta, niiden on riskiperusteisen lähestymistavan perusteella määritettävä ennalta auditointien ja tarkastusten tiheys samoin kuin auditoitavat alueet noudattaen yleisesti hyväksyttyjä auditointistandardeja tällaisten auditointistandardien käytöstä ja niiden noudattamisesta mahdollisesti annettujen valvontaohjeiden mukaisesti.

Jos TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevan kolmannen osapuolen kanssa tehdyt TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevat sopimusjärjestelyt ovat teknisesti hyvin monimutkaisia, finanssiyhteisön on varmistettava, että auditoijilla, joko sisäisillä tai ulkopuolisilla taikka auditointiryhmillä, on asianmukaiset taidot ja tiedot asiaankuuluvien auditointien ja arviointien tuloksellista suorittamista varten.
EULAW 28 artikla 7

7.   Finanssiyhteisöjen on varmistettava, että TVT-palvelujen käyttöä koskevat sopimusjärjestelyt voidaan irtisanoa missä tahansa seuraavista olosuhteista:

a)

TVT-palveluntarjoajana oleva kolmas osapuoli rikkoo merkittävästi sovellettavia lakeja ja määräyksiä tai sopimusehtoja;

b)

kolmansiin osapuoliin liittyvän riskin valvonnan yhteydessä havaitaan seikkoja, joiden katsotaan voivan muuttaa sopimusjärjestelyn puitteissa tarjottujen toimintojen suorittamista, mukaan lukien olennaiset muutokset, jotka vaikuttavat järjestelyyn tai TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevan kolmannen osapuolen tilanteeseen;

c)

todennetut heikkoudet, jotka liittyvät TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevan kolmannen osapuolen yleiseen TVT-riskinhallintaan, ja erityisesti tavassa, jolla se varmistaa henkilötietojen tai muutoin arkaluonteisten tietojen taikka muiden kuin henkilötietojen saatavuuden, aitouden, eheyden ja luottamuksellisuuden;

d)

toimivaltainen viranomainen ei voi asianomaisen sopimusjärjestelyn ehtojen tai siihen liittyvien olosuhteiden seurauksena enää valvoa finanssiyhteisöä tehokkaasti.
EULAW 28 artikla 8

8.   Kun kyseessä ovat kriittisiä tai tärkeitä toimintoja tukevat TVT-palvelut, finanssiyhteisöjen on otettava käyttöön irtautumisstrategiat. Irtautumisstrategioissa on otettava huomioon mahdolliset TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevien kolmansien osapuolten tasolla ilmenevät riskit, erityisesti niiden mahdollinen vikaantuminen, tarjottujen TVT-palvelujen laadun heikkeneminen, virheellisestä tai viallisesta TVT-palvelujen tarjonnasta johtuvat liiketoiminnan keskeytymiset tai kaikki olennaiset riskit, jotka aiheutuvat asianomaisen TVT-palvelun asianmukaisesta ja jatkuvasta käytöstä tai TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevan kolmannen osapuolen kanssa tehtyjen sopimusjärjestelyjen päättymisestä jossakin 7 kohdassa tarkoitetuista tilanteista.

Finanssiyhteisöjen on varmistettava, että ne voivat irtautua sopimusjärjestelyistä ilman, että

a)

niiden liiketoiminnot keskeytyvät;

b)

lakisääteisten vaatimusten noudattamista rajoitetaan;

c)

asiakkaille tarjottavien palvelujen jatkuvuus ja laatu kärsivät.

Irtautumissuunnitelmien on oltava kattavia, dokumentoituja, ja niiden on 4 artiklan 2 kohdassa vahvistettujen kriteerien mukaisesti oltava riittävästi testattuja ja säännöllisesti uudelleen tarkasteltuja.

Finanssiyhteisöjen on määritettävä vaihtoehtoisia ratkaisuja ja laadittava siirtymäsuunnitelmia, joiden avulla ne voivat poistaa sopimusten kattamat TVT-palvelut ja niihin liittyvän datan TVT-palveluntarjoajana olevilta kolmansilta osapuolilta ja siirtää ne turvallisesti ja kokonaisuudessaan vaihtoehtoisille palveluntarjoajille tai integroida ne uudelleen yhteisön sisällä.

Finanssiyhteisöillä on oltava käytössään asianmukaiset varotoimenpiteet liiketoiminnan jatkuvuuden ylläpitämiseksi ensimmäisessä alakohdassa tarkoitetuissa tilanteissa.

Linkitetyt tehtävät

Linkit
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 Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
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
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
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 SSO-01.01B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
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
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
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 SSO-01.01B
is blocked by RSK-20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks PM-30 Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy
blocks SA-09(03) Establish and Maintain Trust Relationship with Providers
blocks SR-02 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-07 Supply Chain Operations Security
blocks SR-02 [L] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [M] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [H] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks 03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
  • 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.