+Article 13 Obligations incombant aux fabricants
---+Article 13 1.
---+Article 13 2.
---+Article 13 3.
---+Article 13 4.
---+Article 13 5.
---+Article 13 6.
---+Article 13 7.
---+Article 13 8.
---+Article 13 9.
---+Article 13 10.
---+Article 13 11.
---+Article 13 12.
---+Article 13 13.
---+Article 13 14.
---+Article 13 15.
---+Article 13 16.
---+Article 13 17.
---+Article 13 18.
---+Article 13 19.
---+Article 13 20.
---+Article 13 21.
---+Article 13 22.
---+Article 13 23.
---+Article 13 24.
---+Article 13 25.
|
Article 13 Obligations incombant aux fabricants
-
1. Vue d’ensemble
| Intitulé |
Réglementation |
|
Article 13 1.
|
Lorsqu’ils mettent sur le marché un produit comportant des éléments numériques, les fabricants s’assurent que ce produit a été conçu, développé et fabriqué conformément aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I, partie I.
|
|
Article 13 2.
|
Aux fins du respect du paragraphe 1, les fabricants procèdent à une évaluation des risques de cybersécurité associés à un produit comportant des éléments numériques et tiennent compte des résultats de cette évaluation au cours des phases de planification, de conception, de développement, de production, de livraison et de maintenance du produit comportant des éléments numériques, en vue de réduire au minimum les risques de cybersécurité, de prévenir les incidents et d’en réduire au minimum leurs répercussions, y compris en ce qui concerne la santé et la sécurité des utilisateurs.
|
|
Article 13 3.
|
L’évaluation des risques de cybersécurité est documentée et mise à jour selon les besoins au cours d’une période d’assistance à déterminer conformément au paragraphe 8 du présent article. Cette évaluation des risques de cybersécurité comprend au moins une analyse des risques de cybersécurité fondée sur l’utilisation prévue et l’utilisation raisonnablement prévisible, ainsi que sur les conditions d’utilisation du produit comportant des éléments numériques, tels que l’environnement opérationnel ou les actifs à protéger, compte tenu de la durée prévue d’utilisation du produit. L’évaluation des risques de cybersécurité indique si et, dans l’affirmative, de quelle manière, les exigences de sécurité énoncées à l’annexe I, partie I, point 2), sont applicables au produit comportant des éléments numériques concerné et comment ces exigences sont mises en œuvre sur la base de l’évaluation du risque de cybersécurité. Elle indique également de quelle manière le fabricant doit appliquer l’annexe I, partie I, point 1), ainsi que les exigences relatives à la gestion des vulnérabilités énoncées à l’annexe I, partie II.
|
|
Article 13 4.
|
Lorsqu’il met sur le marché un produit comportant des éléments numériques, le fabricant inclut l’évaluation des risques de cybersécurité visée au paragraphe 3 du présent article dans la documentation technique requise conformément à l’article 31 et à l’annexe VII. Pour les produits comportant des éléments numériques mentionnés à l’article 12, qui relèvent aussi d’autres actes juridiques de l’Union, l’évaluation des risques de cybersécurité peut faire partie de l’évaluation des risques prévue par ces actes juridiques de l’Union. Lorsque certaines exigences essentielles de cybersécurité ne sont pas applicables au produit comportant des éléments numériques, le fabricant fait figurer une justification claire dans cette documentation technique.
|
|
Article 13 5.
|
Aux fins du respect de l’obligation énoncée au paragraphe 1, les fabricants font preuve de diligence raisonnable lorsqu’ils intègrent dans des produits comportant des éléments numériques des composants obtenus auprès de tiers, de sorte que ces composants ne compromettent pas la cybersécurité du produit comportant des éléments numériques, y compris lors de l’intégration de composants de logiciels libres et ouverts qui n’ont pas été mis à disposition sur le marché dans le cadre d’une activité commerciale.
|
|
Article 13 6.
|
Lorsqu’ils identifient une vulnérabilité dans un composant, y compris un composant logiciel ouvert, qui est intégré au produit comportant des éléments numériques, les fabricants signalent la vulnérabilité à la personne ou à l’entité qui assure la maintenance du composant, et s’attaquent et remédient à la vulnérabilité conformément aux exigences relatives à la gestion des vulnérabilités énoncées à l’annexe I, partie II. Lorsque les fabricants ont mis au point une modification logicielle ou matérielle pour remédier à la vulnérabilité de ce composant, ils partagent le code ou la documentation correspondants avec la personne ou l’entité qui fabrique le composant ou en assure la maintenance, dans un format lisible par machine s’il y a lieu.
|
|
Article 13 7.
|
Les fabricants documentent systématiquement, d’une manière proportionnée à la nature et à l’ampleur des risques de cybersécurité, les aspects pertinents pour la cybersécurité concernant le produit comportant des éléments numériques, y compris les vulnérabilités dont ils prennent connaissance et toute information pertinente fournie par des tiers, et, le cas échéant, mettent à jour l’évaluation des risques de cybersécurité du produit.
|
|
Article 13 8.
|
Lorsqu’ils mettent sur le marché un produit comportant des éléments numériques, et pendant la période d’assistance, les fabricants veillent à ce que les vulnérabilités de ce produit, y compris de ses composants, soient gérées efficacement et conformément aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I, partie II. Les fabricants fixent la période d’assistance de sorte qu’elle reflète la durée pendant laquelle le produit est censé pouvoir être utilisé, en tenant compte, en particulier, des attentes raisonnables des utilisateurs, de la nature du produit, y compris de son utilisation prévue, ainsi que du droit de l’Union applicable déterminant la durée de vie des produits comportant des éléments numériques. Lorsqu’ils déterminent la période d’assistance, les fabricants peuvent également tenir compte des périodes d’assistance des produits comportant des éléments numériques offrant une fonctionnalité similaire mis sur le marché par d’autres fabricants, de la disponibilité de l’environnement opérationnel, des périodes d’assistance des composants intégrés qui assurent des fonctions essentielles et proviennent de tiers, ainsi que des orientations pertinentes fournies par le groupe de coopération administrative (ADCO) institué en vertu de l’article 52, paragraphe 15, et par la Commission. Les éléments à prendre en compte pour définir la période d’assistance sont pris en compte de manière à garantir la proportionnalité. Sans préjudice du deuxième alinéa, la période d’assistance est d’au moins cinq ans. Lorsque le produit comportant des éléments numériques est censé pouvoir être utilisé pendant moins de cinq ans, la période d’assistance correspond à la durée d’utilisation prévue. Compte tenu des recommandations ADCO visées à l’article 52, paragraphe 16, la Commission peut adopter des actes délégués conformément à l’article 61 afin de compléter le présent règlement en précisant la période d’assistance minimale pour des catégories de produits spécifiques lorsque les données de surveillance du marché indiquent que les périodes d’assistance fixées sont insuffisantes. Les fabricants font figurer dans la documentation technique visée à l’annexe VII les informations qui ont été prises en compte pour déterminer la période d’assistance du produit comportant des éléments numériques. Les fabricants disposent de politiques et de procédures appropriées, notamment les politiques de divulgation coordonnée des vulnérabilités mentionnées à l’annexe I, partie II, point 5), pour traiter et corriger les vulnérabilités potentielles du produit comportant des éléments numériques signalées par des sources internes ou externes.
|
|
Article 13 9.
|
Les fabricants veillent à ce que chaque mise à jour de sécurité, visée à l’annexe I, partie II, point 8), qui a été mise à la disposition des utilisateurs au cours de la période d’assistance, reste disponible après son émission pendant dix ans au minimum ou pendant le reste de la période d’assistance, la période la plus longue étant retenue.
|
|
Article 13 10.
|
Lorsqu’un fabricant met sur le marché des versions ultérieures substantiellement modifiées d’un logiciel, il peut garantir la conformité avec l’exigence essentielle de cybersécurité énoncée à l’annexe I, partie II, point 2), uniquement pour la dernière version mise sur le marché, à condition que les utilisateurs des versions précédemment mises sur le marché aient accès gratuitement aux dernières versions mises sur le marché et ne doivent pas supporter des coûts supplémentaires pour adapter l’environnement matériel et logiciel dans lequel ils utilisent la version originale de ce produit.
|
|
Article 13 11.
|
Les fabricants peuvent conserver des archives logicielles publiques améliorant l’accès des utilisateurs aux versions antérieures. Dans ces cas, les utilisateurs sont clairement informés, d’une manière aisément accessible, des risques associés à l’utilisation de logiciels non pris en charge.
|
|
Article 13 12.
|
Avant de mettre sur le marché un produit comportant des éléments numériques, les fabricants établissent la documentation technique visée à l’article 31. Ils appliquent ou font appliquer les procédures d’évaluation de la conformité choisies visées à l’article 32. Lorsqu’il a été démontré, au moyen de cette procédure d’évaluation de la conformité, que le produit comportant des éléments numériques est conforme aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I, partie I, et que les processus mis en place par le fabricant sont conformes aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I, partie II, les fabricants établissent la déclaration UE de conformité conformément à l’article 28 et appose le marquage CE conformément à l’article 30.
|
|
Article 13 13.
|
Les fabricants tiennent la documentation technique et la déclaration UE de conformité à la disposition des autorités de surveillance du marché pendant une durée d’au moins dix ans après la mise sur le marché du produit comportant des éléments numériques ou pendant la période d’assistance, la période la plus longue étant retenue.
|
|
Article 13 14.
|
Les fabricants veillent à ce que des procédures soient en place pour que la conformité avec le présent règlement des produits comportant des éléments numériques produits en série reste assurée. Les fabricants tiennent dûment compte des modifications du processus de développement et de production ou de la conception ou des caractéristiques du produit comportant des éléments numériques, ainsi que des modifications des normes harmonisées, des schémas européens de certification de cybersécurité ou des spécifications techniques visées à l’article 27 au regard desquelles la conformité du produit comportant des éléments numériques est déclarée ou en application desquelles sa conformité est vérifiée.
|
|
Article 13 15.
|
Les fabricants veillent à ce que leurs produits comportant des éléments numériques portent un numéro de type, de lot ou de série ou tout autre élément permettant leur identification ou, lorsque cela n’est pas possible, à ce que cette information soit fournie sur l’emballage ou dans un document accompagnant le produit comportant des éléments numériques.
|
|
Article 13 16.
|
Le fabricant indique son nom, sa raison sociale ou sa marque déposée et ses adresses postale, électronique ou autre moyen numérique, ainsi que, le cas échéant, l’adresse du site internet, auxquelles il peut être contacté sur le produit comportant des éléments numériques, sur son emballage ou dans un document l’accompagnant. Ces informations figurent également dans les informations et instructions destinées à l’utilisateur énoncées à l’annexe II. Les coordonnées sont indiquées dans une langue aisément compréhensible par les utilisateurs et les autorités de surveillance du marché.
|
|
Article 13 17.
|
Aux fins du présent règlement, les fabricants désignent un point de contact unique pour permettre aux utilisateurs de communiquer directement et rapidement avec lui, y compris afin de faciliter le signalement des vulnérabilités des produits comportant des éléments numériques. Les fabricants veillent à ce que le point de contact unique soit facilement identifiable par les utilisateurs. Ils font également figurer le point de contact unique dans les informations et instructions destinées à l’utilisateur énoncées à l’annexe II. Le point de contact unique permet aux utilisateurs de choisir leurs moyens de communication préférés, ces moyens n’étant pas limités aux outils automatisés.
|
|
Article 13 18.
|
Les fabricants veillent à ce que les produits comportant des éléments numériques soient accompagnés des informations et des instructions destinées à l’utilisateur énoncées à l’annexe II, sous forme papier ou électronique. Ces informations et instructions sont fournies dans une langue aisément compréhensible par les utilisateurs et les autorités de surveillance du marché. Elles sont claires, compréhensibles, intelligibles et lisibles. Elles permettent une installation, un fonctionnement et une utilisation sécurisés des produits comportant des éléments numériques. Les fabricants tiennent les informations et instructions destinées à l’utilisateur énoncées à l’annexe II à la disposition des utilisateurs et des autorités de surveillance du marché pendant une durée d’au moins dix ans après la mise sur le marché du produit comportant des éléments numériques ou pendant la période d’assistance, la période la plus longue étant retenue. Lorsque ces informations et instructions sont fournies en ligne, les fabricants veillent à ce qu’elles soient accessibles, faciles d’utilisation et disponibles en ligne pendant une durée d’au moins dix ans après la mise sur le marché du produit comportant des éléments numériques ou pendant la période d’assistance, la période la plus longue étant retenue.
|
|
Article 13 19.
|
Les fabricants veillent à ce que la date de fin de la période d’assistance visée au paragraphe 8, y compris au moins le mois et l’année, soit précisée au moment de l’achat, d’une manière claire, compréhensible et aisément accessible et, le cas échéant, sur le produit comportant des éléments numériques, son emballage ou par des moyens numériques. Lorsque cela est techniquement possible compte tenu de la nature du produit comportant des éléments numériques, les fabricants prévoient l’affichage d’une notification aux utilisateurs les informant que leur produit comportant des éléments numériques a atteint la fin de sa période d’assistance.
|
|
Article 13 20.
|
Les fabricants fournissent soit une copie de la déclaration UE de conformité, soit une déclaration UE de conformité simplifiée avec le produit comportant des éléments numériques. Dans le cas où une déclaration UE de conformité simplifiée est jointe, celle-ci contient l’adresse internet exacte à laquelle le texte complet de la déclaration UE de conformité est accessible.
|
|
Article 13 21.
|
Dès la mise sur le marché et pendant la période d’assistance, les fabricants qui considèrent ou ont des raisons de croire que le produit comportant des éléments numériques ou les processus mis en place par le fabricant ne sont pas conformes aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I prennent immédiatement les mesures correctives nécessaires pour mettre ce produit comportant des éléments numériques ou les processus du fabricant en conformité, ou pour procéder à leur retrait ou à leur rappel, selon le cas.
|
|
Article 13 22.
|
Sur requête motivée d’une autorité de surveillance du marché, les fabricants communiquent à cette dernière, dans une langue aisément compréhensible par cette autorité, toutes les informations et tous les documents, sur support papier ou par voie électronique, nécessaires pour démontrer la conformité du produit comportant des éléments numériques et des processus mis en place par le fabricant aux exigences essentielles de cybersécurité énoncées à l’annexe I. Les fabricants coopèrent avec ladite autorité, à la demande de cette dernière, concernant toute mesure prise pour éliminer les risques de cybersécurité présentés par le produit comportant des éléments numériques qu’ils ont mis sur le marché.
|
|
Article 13 23.
|
Un fabricant qui cesse ses activités et qui, de ce fait, n’est pas en mesure de se conformer au présent règlement informe, avant que cette cessation ne prenne effet, les autorités de surveillance du marché concernées, ainsi que, par tout moyen disponible et dans la mesure du possible, les utilisateurs des produits comportant des éléments numériques mis sur le marché concernés de la cessation imminente de ses activités.
|
|
Article 13 24.
|
La Commission peut, par voie d’actes d’exécution tenant compte des normes et bonnes pratiques européennes et internationales, préciser le format et les éléments de la nomenclature des logiciels visée à l’annexe I, partie II, point 1). Ces actes d’exécution sont adoptés en conformité avec la procédure d’examen visée à l’article 62, paragraphe 2.
|
|
Article 13 25.
|
Afin d’évaluer la dépendance des États membres et de l’Union dans son ensemble à l’égard des composants logiciels, et en particulier des composants qui répondent aux critères de logiciels libres et ouverts, l’ADCO peut décider de procéder à une évaluation de la dépendance à l’échelle de l’Union pour des catégories spécifiques de produits comportant des éléments numériques. À cette fin, les autorités de surveillance du marché peuvent demander aux fabricants de ces catégories de produits comportant des éléments numériques de fournir les nomenclatures des logiciels pertinentes du matériel visées à l’annexe I, partie II, point 1). Sur la base de ces informations, les autorités de surveillance du marché peuvent fournir à l’ADCO des informations anonymisées et agrégées sur les dépendances logicielles. L’ADCO soumet un rapport sur les résultats de l’évaluation de la dépendance au groupe de coopération institué en vertu de l’article 14 de la directive (UE) 2022/2555.
|
,
1.1 Références
1.2 Exigences identifiées
1.3 Normes associées
2. Exigences identifiées
Exigences
| Source |
Exigence |
3. Normes associées
Normes
| Source |
Exigence |
|
SCF
|
Ability To Demonstrate Conformity
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure the organization is able to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 organization is able to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Compliance (CPL) 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
|
Conformity Assessment
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy 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 assigned cybersecurity and/or data protection controls to comply with specific compliance requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Grievances
Description
Mechanisms exist to govern the intake and analysis of grievances related to the organization's cybersecurity and/or data protection practices.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 govern the intake and analysis of grievances related to the organization's cybersecurity and/or data protection practices.
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
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Status Reporting
Description
Mechanisms exist to submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Maintain records for any required compliance filings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Designate a compliance contact for required reporting
∙ Track reporting deadlines
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance calendar for required submissions
∙ Documented reporting procedures
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Compliance tracking platform
∙ Dedicated compliance officer
∙ Standardized reporting templates
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for compliance reporting
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated regulatory submission tracking
∙ Legal and compliance integration
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
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.
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
|
Media & Data Retention
Description
Mechanisms exist to retain media and data in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data governance program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data 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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Data protection controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to classify, protect and dispose of systems and data, including storage media.
▪ A manual data retention process exists.
▪ Media is securely stored until it is destroyed or sanitized using approved equipment, techniques and procedures.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ The data retention process is manual and IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to manage the process.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to dispose of, destroy, erase, and/or anonymize sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 retain media and data in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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
|
Information Assurance (IA) Operations
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience assessment and authorization controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security 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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 implementation of security, compliance and resilience assessment and authorization controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Assessment Boundaries
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish the scope of assessments by defining the assessment boundary, according to people, processes and technology that directly or indirectly impact the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under review.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Define which systems and people are in scope for security reviews
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented assessment scope (systems, processes, personnel) for audits/assessments
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Assessment boundary definition (people, process, technology) in assessment plans
∙ Authorization boundary diagrams
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal assessment boundary methodology (e.g., FedRAMP/CMMC scoping guidance)
∙ Boundary documentation in SSP
∙ Scope approval by stakeholders
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise assessment scoping standards with documented authorization boundaries across systems
∙ GRC platform scoping and asset linkage
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 establish the scope of assessments by defining the assessment boundary, according to people, processes and technology that directly or indirectly impact the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the TAASD under review.
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 Validation Testing (CVT)
Description
Mechanisms exist to formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security 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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Specialized Assessments
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct specialized assessments for:
(1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations;
(2) Monitoring capabilities;
(3) Mobile devices;
(4) Databases;
(5) Application security;
(6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT and OT);
(7) Vulnerability management;
(8) Malicious code;
(9) Insider threats;
(10) Performance/load testing;
(11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT); and/or
(12) Other Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that require specialized expertise to determine conformity with security, compliance and/or resilience requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 conduct specialized assessments for:
(1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations;
(2) Monitoring capabilities;
(3) Mobile devices;
(4) Databases;
(5) Application security;
(6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT and OT);
(7) Vulnerability management;
(8) Malicious code;
(9) Insider threats;
(10) Performance/load testing;
(11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT); and/or
(12) Other Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that require specialized expertise to determine conformity with security, compliance and/or resilience requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Assessor Independence
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure assessors or assessment teams have the appropriate independence to conduct security, compliance and/or resilience control assessments.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Security reviews performed by someone other than the person who built/operates the system, or external assessor
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Independent internal reviewer or third-party assessor
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Assessor independence requirements in the IA program
∙ Third-party assessments for critical systems
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Independent assessment function (internal audit or third-party)
∙ Independence criteria documented
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise independent assurance function (internal audit, second line) and third-party assessors
∙ Independence standards aligned with IIA and regulatory requirements
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 assessors or assessment teams have the appropriate independence to conduct security, compliance and/or resilience control assessments.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Applied Security, Compliance and Resilience Controls Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate authoritative documentation (e.g., System Security Plan (SSP)) that:
(1) Identifies key architectural and implementation information on in-scope Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS);
(2) Reflects the current state of applied security, compliance and resilience controls on applicable People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) that are contained within the system boundary; and
(3) Provides a historical record of applied security controls, including changes.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop and maintain System Security Plans (SSPs) or similar documentation, to identify and maintain key architectural information for each business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 generate authoritative documentation (e.g., System Security Plan (SSP)) that:
(1) Identifies key architectural and implementation information on in-scope Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS);
(2) Reflects the current state of applied security, compliance and resilience controls on applicable People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) that are contained within the system boundary; and
(3) Provides a historical record of applied security controls, including changes.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Threat Analysis & Flaw Remediation During Development
Description
Mechanisms exist to require system developers and integrators to create and execute a Security Testing and Evaluation (ST&E) plan, or similar process, to identify and remediate flaws during development.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Pre-production Control Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Pre-production Control Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Pre-production Control Validation Testing (CVT)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Pre-production Control Validation Testing (CVT)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Pre-production Control Validation Testing (CVT)
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 require system developers and integrators to create and execute a Security Testing and Evaluation (ST&E) plan, or similar process, to identify and remediate flaws during development.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Technical Verification
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform Control Validation Testing (CVT) activities to evaluate the design, implementation and effectiveness of technical security, compliance and resilience controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to evaluate the design, implementation and effectiveness of technical security, compliance and resilience controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Capabilities Deficiency Tracking
Description
Mechanisms exist to govern identified deficiencies (e.g., Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) or similar methodology) that formally documents, at a minimum:
(1) Deficiency tracking number;
(2) Applicable security, compliance and/or resilience control;
(3) Description of the deficiency(ies);
(4) Risk associated with the deficiency(ies);
(5) Source deficiency identification/detection;
(6) Temporary compensating controls, if applicable;
(7) Point of Contact (POC) (e.g., asset/process owner);
(8) Resources required to conduct remediation actions;
(9) Planned remedial actions to the deficiency(ies);
(10) Proposed remediation timeline; and
(11) Disposition statement (e.g., closeout summary).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
∙ Risk register
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
∙ Risk register
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
∙ Risk register
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
∙ Risk register
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
∙ Risk register
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 govern identified deficiencies (e.g., Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) or similar methodology) that formally documents, at a minimum:
(1) Deficiency tracking number;
(2) Applicable security, compliance and/or resilience control;
(3) Description of the deficiency(ies);
(4) Risk associated with the deficiency(ies);
(5) Source deficiency identification/detection;
(6) Temporary compensating controls, if applicable;
(7) Point of Contact (POC) (e.g., asset/process owner);
(8) Resources required to conduct remediation actions;
(9) Planned remedial actions to the deficiency(ies);
(10) Proposed remediation timeline; and
(11) Disposition statement (e.g., closeout summary).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Security Assessment Report (SAR)
Description
Mechanisms exist to produce a Security Assessment Report (SAR) at the conclusion of a security assessment to certify the results of the assessment and assist with any remediation actions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR)
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
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 produce a Security Assessment Report (SAR) at the conclusion of a security assessment to certify the results of the assessment and assist with any remediation actions.
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
|
Security Authorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are officially authorized prior to "go live" in a production environment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Owner approval before new systems go live
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Go-live approval checklist including security review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal authorization to operate before production (Authorizing Official sign-off)
∙ Security Assessment Report (SAR) input
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Security authorization process (e.g., RMF-based) with documented authorization decisions
∙ Authorization tracked in GRC
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise security authorization program (RMF/ATO) with continuous authorization
∙ GRC platform authorization workflows
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) are officially authorized prior to "go live" in a production environment.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Information Assurance (IA) Operations
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience assessment and authorization controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security 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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 implementation of security, compliance and resilience assessment and authorization controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Assessment Boundaries
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish the scope of assessments by defining the assessment boundary, according to people, processes and technology that directly or indirectly impact the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under review.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Define which systems and people are in scope for security reviews
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented assessment scope (systems, processes, personnel) for audits/assessments
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Assessment boundary definition (people, process, technology) in assessment plans
∙ Authorization boundary diagrams
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal assessment boundary methodology (e.g., FedRAMP/CMMC scoping guidance)
∙ Boundary documentation in SSP
∙ Scope approval by stakeholders
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise assessment scoping standards with documented authorization boundaries across systems
∙ GRC platform scoping and asset linkage
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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 establish the scope of assessments by defining the assessment boundary, according to people, processes and technology that directly or indirectly impact the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the TAASD under review.
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 Validation Testing (CVT)
Description
Mechanisms exist to formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
∙ Information Assurance (IA) program
∙ VisibleOps security 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
Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations.
▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment 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 IAO 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 formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IAO) 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
|
Secure Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure changes to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) within the Secure Development Life Cycle (SDLC) are controlled through formal change control procedures.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
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
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Project & Resource Management -related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Project & Resource 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 Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements.
▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or project management function, enables the implementation of cybersecurity and data protection-related resource planning controls across the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects.
▪ The PM function enables project involvement for Information Assurance Program (IAP) as part of the organization's established project management processes to ensure both cybersecurity and data protection principles are identified and implemented.
Level 3 Well Defined
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of project and resource management operations (e.g., project 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 PRM 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).
▪ The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure changes to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) within the Secure Development Life Cycle (SDLC) are controlled through formal change control procedures.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience In Project Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to assess security, compliance and resilience controls as part of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) project development to determine whether controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Product / project management
∙ Program Management Office (PMO)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Product / project management
∙ Program Management Office (PMO)
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
Project & Resource Management (PRM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PRM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Project 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 work with data/process owners to help ensure secure practices are implemented throughout the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Project & Resource Management -related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Project & Resource 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 Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements.
▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or project management function, enables the implementation of cybersecurity and data protection-related resource planning controls across the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects.
▪ The PM function enables project involvement for Information Assurance Program (IAP) as part of the organization's established project management processes to ensure both cybersecurity and data protection principles are identified and implemented.
Level 3 Well Defined
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of project and resource management operations (e.g., project 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 PRM 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).
▪ The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements.
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to assess security, compliance and resilience controls in system project development to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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
|
Product Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern changes to the software library to prevent unauthorized changes and create an audit trail of changes made.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
▪ Development and acquisition management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
|
Ongoing Product Security Support
Description
Mechanisms exist to deliver security updates to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), where applicable, through:
(1) Automatic updates; and
(2) Notification of available updates to affected users.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Deliver security updates for any developed products; publish update notices
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Defined support period and update channel for developed products
∙ Security advisories to customers
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Product security update process with automatic updates where feasible
∙ Published support lifecycle
∙ Security advisory process
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) delivering updates and advisories
∙ Automatic update mechanisms with integrity verification
∙ Defined end-of-support policy
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PSIRT and product security update program (e.g., aligned with ISO/IEC 30111, EU CRA)
∙ Secure automatic update infrastructure
∙ Customer notification and support lifecycle 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 deliver security updates to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), where applicable, through:
(1) Automatic updates; and
(2) Notification of available updates to affected 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
|
Functional Properties
Description
Mechanisms exist to require software developers to provide information describing the functional properties of the security, compliance and resilience controls to be utilized within Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to permit analysis and testing of the controls.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 require software developers to provide information describing the functional properties of the security, compliance and resilience controls to be utilized within Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to permit analysis and testing of the controls.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
|
Administrator Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to obtain, protect and distribute administrator documentation for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that describe:
(1) Secure configuration, installation and operation of the TAAS;
(2) Effective use and maintenance of security features/functions; and
(3) Known vulnerabilities regarding configuration and use of administrative (e.g., privileged) functions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Product / project 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ 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 TDA 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 obtain, protect and distribute administrator documentation for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that describe:
(1) Secure configuration, installation and operation of the TAAS;
(2) Effective use and maintenance of security features/functions; and
(3) Known vulnerabilities regarding configuration and use of administrative (e.g., privileged) functions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
|
Vulnerability Remediation Process
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Patch software when updates are released
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vulnerability remediation policy
∙ Prioritized patching schedule
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal vulnerability remediation process
∙ Risk-based prioritization
∙ Remediation SLAs
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise vulnerability remediation program
∙ Defined SLAs by severity
∙ Tracking and reporting
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise vulnerability management platform (e.g., Tenable.io, Qualys)
∙ Automated remediation tracking
∙ SIEM integration
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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with VPM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Attack Surface Management (ASM)-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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Vulnerability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Vulnerability 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 Defined
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 VPM 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 VPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A vulnerability management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain VPM domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability management operations (e.g., patch management solution and vulnerability scanning 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 VPM 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 that vulnerabilities are properly identified, tracked and remediated.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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
Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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.
|
|