+Incident Response Training
---+Simulated Incidents
---+Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Incident Response Training
Description
Mechanisms exist to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ Incident responders are proficient on their specific IRP role(s) and responsibilities through recurring training events (e.g., annual rock drill).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to train personnel in their incident response roles and responsibilities.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Standardi |
|
Simulated Incidents
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to incorporate simulated events into incident response training to facilitate effective response by personnel in crisis situations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Automated Incident Response Training Environments
|
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically provide a more thorough and realistic incident response training environment.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät säädökset
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät säädökset
Säädökset
| Lähde |
Sääntely |
|
EULAW
|
14 artikla 1
1. Finanssiyhteisöjen on osana 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettua TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmää toteutettava kriisiviestintäsuunnitelmia, joidenka avulla voidaan vastuullisesti tiedottaa ainakin laajavaikutteisista TVT:hen liittyvistä poikkeamista tai haavoittuvuuksista tarpeen mukaan asiakkaille ja vastapuolille sekä suurelle yleisölle.
|
|
EULAW
|
14 artikla 2
2. Finanssiyhteisöjen on osana TVT-riskinhallintajärjestelmää toteutettava sekä sisäisen henkilöstön jäsenille että ulkoisille sidosryhmille suunnattua viestintäpolitiikkaa. Henkilöstölle suunnatussa viestintäpolitiikassa on tehtävä ero TVT-riskinhallintaan ja erityisesti reagointi- ja toipumistoimiin osallistuvan henkilöstön ja toisaalta sen henkilöstön välillä, jolle on tiedotettava kyseisistä toimista.
|
|
EULAW
|
14 artikla 3
3. Finanssiyhteisössä on oltava ainakin yksi henkilö, jonka tehtävänä on toteuttaa TVT:hen liittyviä poikkeamia koskeva viestintästrategia ja vastata tähän liittyvästä tiedottamisesta yleisölle ja tiedotusvälineille.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 artikla 1
1. Finanssiyhteisöjen on raportoitava laajavaikutteisista TVT:hen liittyvistä poikkeamista 46 artiklassa tarkoitetulle asianomaiselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle tämän artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti.
Jos finanssiyhteisöä valvoo useampi kuin yksi 46 artiklassa tarkoitettu kansallinen toimivaltainen viranomainen, jäsenvaltioiden on nimettävä yksi toimivaltainen viranomainen asianomaiseksi toimivaltaiseksi viranomaiseksi, joka vastaa tässä artiklassa säädettyjen tehtävien ja velvollisuuksien suorittamisesta.
Luottolaitosten, jotka on luokiteltu merkittäviksi asetuksen (EU) N:o 1024/2013 6 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti, on raportoitava laajavaikutteisista TVT:hen liittyvistä poikkeamista direktiivin 2013/36/EU 4 artiklan mukaisesti nimetylle asianomaiselle kansalliselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle, jonka on välitettävä kyseinen raportti välittömästi EKP:lle.
Ensimmäistä alakohtaa sovellettaessa finanssiyhteisöjen on kaikkien asiaankuuluvien tietojen keräämisen ja analysoinnin jälkeen laadittava tämän artiklan 4 kohdassa tarkoitetut alustava ilmoitus ja raportit 20 artiklassa tarkoitettuja malleja käyttäen ja toimitettava ne toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle. Jos tekninen mahdottomuus estää alustavan ilmoituksen toimittamisen mallia käyttäen, finanssiyhteisöjen on ilmoitettava siitä toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle vaihtoehtoisin keinoin.
Jäljempänä 4 kohdassa tarkoitetuissa alustavassa ilmoituksessa ja raporteissa on esitettävä kaikki tiedot, jotka toimivaltainen viranomainen tarvitsee voidakseen määrittää laajavaikutteisen TVT:hen liittyvän poikkeaman merkityksen ja arvioida mahdollisia rajatylittäviä vaikutuksia.
Rajoittamatta ensimmäisen alakohdan mukaista raportointia, jonka finanssiyhteisö suorittaa asianomaiselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle, jäsenvaltiot voivat lisäksi päättää, että joidenkin tai kaikkien finanssiyhteisöjen on myös toimitettava alustava ilmoitus ja kaikki tämän artiklan 4 kohdassa tarkoitetut raportit 20 artiklassa tarkoitettuja malleja käyttäen toimivaltaisille viranomaisille tai direktiivin (EU) 2022/2555 mukaisesti nimetyille tai perustetuille tietoturvaloukkauksiin reagoiville ja niitä tutkiville yksiköille, jäljempänä ’CSIRT-yksiköt’.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 artikla 2
2. Finanssiyhteisöt voivat vapaaehtoisesti ilmoittaa merkittävistä kyberuhkista asianomaiselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle, jos ne pitävät uhkaa merkittävänä rahoitusjärjestelmän, palvelujen käyttäjien tai asiakkaiden kannalta. Asianomainen toimivaltainen viranomainen voi toimittaa tällaisia tietoja 6 kohdassa tarkoitetuille muille asianomaisille viranomaisille.
Luottolaitokset, jotka on luokiteltu merkittäviksi asetuksen (EU) N:o 1024/2013 6 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti, voivat vapaaehtoisesti ilmoittaa merkittävistä kyberuhkista direktiivin 2013/36/EU 4 artiklan mukaisesti nimetylle asianomaiselle kansalliselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle, jonka on välitettävä ilmoitus välittömästi EKP:lle.
Jäsenvaltiot voivat päättää, että ne finanssiyhteisöt, jotka ensimmäisen alakohdan mukaisesti suorittavat ilmoittamisen vapaaehtoisesti, voivat toimittaa kyseisen ilmoituksen myös direktiivin (EU) 2022/2555 mukaisesti nimetyille tai perustetuille CSIRT-yksiköille.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 artikla 3
3. Jos laajavaikutteinen TVT:hen liittyvä poikkeama ilmenee ja vaikuttaa asiakkaiden taloudellisiin etuihin, finanssiyhteisöjen on ilman aiheetonta viivytystä välittömästi tultuaan asiasta tietoisiksi ilmoitettava asiakkailleen laajavaikutteisesta TVT:hen liittyvästä poikkeamasta ja toimenpiteistä, joita on toteutettu tällaisen poikkeaman haitallisten vaikutusten lieventämiseksi.
Jos kyseessä on merkittävä kyberuhka, finanssiyhteisöjen on tarvittaessa ilmoitettava asiakkailleen, joihin asia mahdollisesti vaikuttaa, kaikista asianmukaisista suojatoimenpiteistä, joiden toteuttamista nämä voivat harkita.
|
|
EULAW
|
19 artikla 4
4. Finanssiyhteisöjen on 20 artiklan ensimmäisen kohdan a alakohdan ii alakohdan mukaisesti vahvistettavissa määräajoissa toimitettava asianomaiselle toimivaltaiselle viranomaiselle seuraavat:
|
b)
|
väliraportti a alakohdassa tarkoitetun alustavan ilmoituksen jälkeen heti, kun alkuperäisen poikkeaman tila on muuttunut merkittävästi tai laajavaikutteisen TVT:hen liittyvän poikkeaman käsittely on muuttunut saatavilla olevien uusien tietojen perusteella, ja tarvittaessa päivitetyt ilmoitukset aina kun asiaa koskeva tilannepäivitys on saatavilla, sekä toimivaltaisen viranomaisen sitä erikseen pyytäessä;
|
|
c)
|
loppuraportti, kun perimmäisten syiden analysointi on saatu päätökseen, riippumatta siitä, onko lieventäviä toimenpiteitä jo toteutettu, ja kun arvioiden sijasta voidaan esittää todellisia vaikutuksia koskevat luvut.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
19 artikla 5
5. Finanssiyhteisöt voivat ulkoistaa unionin ja kansallisen alakohtaisen lainsäädännön mukaisesti tämän artiklan mukaiset raportointivelvollisuudet palveluntarjoajana olevalle kolmannelle osapuolelle. Tällaisen ulkoistamisen tapauksessa finanssiyhteisö on edelleen täysin vastuussa poikkeamien raportointia koskevien vaatimusten täyttämisestä.
|
|
EULAW
|
45 artikla 3
3. Finanssiyhteisöjen on ilmoitettava toimivaltaisille viranomaisille osallistumisestaan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuihin tietojenvaihtojärjestelyihin, kun niiden jäsenyys on vahvistettu, tai tapauksen mukaan jäsenyytensä päättymisestä, kun se tulee voimaan.
|
|
EULAW
|
34 artikla Henkilötietojen tietoturvaloukkauksesta ilmoittaminen rekisteröidylle
-
|
|
EULAW
|
23 artikla Raportointivelvoitteet
-
|
Linkitetyt tehtävät
- 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.
|