+Article 41 Format et contenu du rapport sur le réexamen du cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC
---+Article 41 1.
---+Article 41 2.

Article 41 Format et contenu du rapport sur le réexamen du cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC

1. Vue d’ensemble

Article 41 1.

Les entités financières visées à l’article 16, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2022/2554 présentent le rapport sur le réexamen du cadre de gestion du risque lié aux TIC visé au paragraphe 2 dudit article dans un format électronique interrogeable.

Article 41 2.

Le rapport visé au paragraphe 1 contient l’ensemble des informations suivantes:

une partie introductive contenant:

une description du contexte du rapport en ce qui concerne la nature, l’échelle et la complexité des services, activités et opérations de l’entité financière, son organisation, ses fonctions critiques recensées, sa stratégie, ses grands projets ou activités en cours, ses relations et sa dépendance à l’égard des services et systèmes de TIC internes ou sous-traités, ou les conséquences qu’une perte totale ou une dégradation grave de ces systèmes engendrerait en ce qui concerne les fonctions critiques ou importantes et l’efficience du marché;

ii)

une synthèse du risque lié aux TIC actuel et à court terme qui a été identifié, de l’éventail des menaces, de l’évaluation de l’efficacité de ses contrôles et de la posture de sécurité de l’entité financière;

iii)

des informations sur le domaine faisant l’objet du rapport;

iv)

un résumé des changements majeurs dont le cadre de gestion du risque lié aux TIC a fait l’objet depuis le rapport précédent;

un résumé et une description de l’incidence des changements dont le cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC a fait l’objet depuis le rapport précédent;

le cas échéant, la date d’approbation du rapport par l’organe de direction de l’entité financière;

une description des raisons du réexamen, notamment:

lorsque le réexamen a été engagé à la suite d’instructions des autorités de surveillance, la preuve de ces instructions;

ii)

lorsque le réexamen a été engagé à la suite d’incidents liés aux TIC, la liste de ces incidents accompagnée d’une analyse de leur cause originelle;

les dates de début et de fin de la période examinée;

la personne responsable du réexamen;

un résumé des constatations et une autoévaluation, comprenant une analyse détaillée, de la gravité des faiblesses, des défaillances et des lacunes identifiées du cadre de gestion du risque lié aux TIC pour la période examinée;

les mesures définies pour remédier aux faiblesses, aux défaillances et aux lacunes du cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC, ainsi que la date prévue pour la mise en œuvre de ces mesures, y compris les suites données aux faiblesses, défaillances et lacunes identifiées dans les rapports précédents, lorsqu’il n’y a pas encore été remédié;

les conclusions générales du réexamen du cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC, y compris les nouvelles évolutions prévues.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences
Source	Exigence

3. Normes associées

Normes
Source	Exigence
SCF	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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	Status Reporting To Governing Body Description Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck) ∙ Email status updates to owner/manager Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion) ∙ Documented reporting cadence Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Formal security status reports to leadership ∙ KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs ∙ Board-level reporting on material risk indicators ∙ Automated reporting via GRC platform Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Quarterly Business Review (QBR) ∙ Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings ∙ Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics ∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable) 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 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends. Level 3 Well Defined Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP). 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 Review Of Security, Compliance & Resilience Controls Description Mechanisms exist to regularly review Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for adherence to the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience policies and standards. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Control Validation Testing (CVT) / Security Test & Evaluation (STE) ∙ Regular/yearly policy and standards review process Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Control Validation Testing (CVT) / Security Test & Evaluation (STE) ∙ Regular/yearly policy and standards review process Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Control Validation Testing (CVT) / Security Test & Evaluation (STE) ∙ Regular/yearly policy and standards review process Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Control Validation Testing (CVT) / Security Test & Evaluation (STE) ∙ Regular/yearly policy and standards review process Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Control Validation Testing (CVT) / Security Test & Evaluation (STE) ∙ Regular/yearly policy and standards review process 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 use an entity-defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data protection control assessments. 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 regularly review Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for adherence to the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience policies and standards. 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	Non-Conformity Corrective Action Description Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet) ∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking ∙ Management review of open findings Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal corrective action plan process ∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation ∙ Management review of open findings Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise corrective action management program ∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking ∙ Executive reporting on open findings Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management ∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows ∙ Board-level reporting on material findings 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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance 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	Root Cause Analysis (RCA) & Lessons Learned Description Mechanisms exist to incorporate lessons learned from analyzing and resolving cybersecurity and data protection incidents to reduce the likelihood or impact of future incidents. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Root Cause Analysis (RCA) SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery. ▪ Incident responders provide After Action Review (AAR) feedback on what worked, what did not work and ways to improve future responses to similar incidents. ▪ A formal Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is performed that documents the findings in a report for both technical and business leadership management. Level 3 Well Defined Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery. ▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to incorporate lessons learned from analyzing and resolving cybersecurity and data protection incidents to reduce the likelihood or impact of future incidents. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously Improving Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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.

Builddate: 25.06.2024 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32024R1774
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

Article 41 Format et contenu du rapport sur le réexamen du cadre simplifié de gestion du risque lié aux TIC

1. Vue d’ensemble

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

3. Normes associées

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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