+Airteagal 14 Oibleagáidí tuairiscithe monaróirí
---+Airteagal 14 1.
---+Airteagal 14 2.
---+Airteagal 14 3.
---+Airteagal 14 4.
---+Airteagal 14 5.
---+Airteagal 14 6.
---+Airteagal 14 7.
---+Airteagal 14 8.
---+Airteagal 14 9.
---+Airteagal 14 10.

Airteagal 14 Oibleagáidí tuairiscithe monaróirí

-

1. Forbhreathnú

,
Airteagal 14 1.
Déanfaidh monaróir fógra a thabhairt, an tráth céanna, don CSIRT atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir, i gcomhréir le mír 7 den Airteagal seo, agus do ENISA faoi aon leochaileacht a shaothraítear go gníomhach atá sa táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, faoina dtagann sé ar an eolas. Tabharfaidh an monaróir fógra faoin leochaileacht sin a shaothraítear go gníomhach tríd an ardán tuairiscithe aonair arna bhunú de bhun Airteagal 16.
Airteagal 14 2.

Chun críocha an fhógra dá dtagraítear i mír 1, cuirfidh an monaróir an méid seo a leanas isteach:

(a) 

fógra luathrabhaidh faoi leochaileacht a shaothraítear go gníomhach, gan moill mhíchuí agus in aon chás laistigh de 24 uair an chloig tar éis don mhonaróir teacht ar an eolas fúithi, ina léireofar, i gcás inarb infheidhme, na Ballstáit faoina bhfuil an monaróir ar an eolas gur cuireadh a tháirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha ar fáil ar a gcríoch;

(b) 

mura bhfuil an fhaisnéis ábhartha curtha ar fáil cheana, fógra leochaileachta, gan moill mhíchuí agus in aon chás laistigh de 72 uair an chloig tar éis don mhonaróir teacht ar an eolas faoin leochaileacht a shaothraítear go gníomhach, ina soláthrófar faisnéis ghinearálta, i gcás ina mbeidh fáil uirthi, faoin táirge lena mbaineann ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, cineál ginearálta an tsaothraithe agus na leochaileachta lena mbaineann chomh maith le haon bheart ceartaitheach nó maolaitheach arna dhéanamh, agus bearta ceartaitheacha nó maolaitheacha is féidir le húsáideoirí a dhéanamh, agus ina léireofar freisin, i gcás inarb infheidhme, a íogaire atá an fhaisnéis faoina dtugtar fógra, dar leis an monaróir;

(c) 

mura bhfuil an fhaisnéis ábhartha curtha ar fáil cheana, tuarascáil chríochnaitheach, tráth nach déanaí ná 14 lá tar éis beart ceartaitheach nó maolaitheach a bheith ar fáil, ina n-áirítear an méid seo a leanas ar a laghad:

(i) 

tuairisc ar an leochaileacht, lena n-áirítear a déine agus a tionchar;

(ii) 

i gcás ina mbeidh fáil uirthi, faisnéis maidir le haon ghníomhaí mailíseach a shaothraigh nó a shaothraíonn an leochaileacht;

(iii) 

mionsonraí faoin nuashonrú slándála nó faoi bhearta ceartaitheacha eile a cuireadh ar fáil chun an leochaileacht a leigheas.
Airteagal 14 3.
Déanfaidh monaróir fógra a thabhairt, ag tráth céanna, don CSIRT atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir, i gcomhréir le mír 7 den Airteagal seo, agus do ENISA faoi aon teagmhas tromchúiseach a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, faoina dtagann sé ar an eolas. Tabharfaidh an monaróir fógra faoin teagmhas sin tríd an ardán tuairiscithe aonair arna bhunú de bhun Airteagal 16.
Airteagal 14 4.

Chun críocha an fhógra dá dtagraítear i mír 3, cuirfidh an monaróir an méid seo a leanas isteach:

(a) 

fógra luathrabhaidh faoi theagmhas tromchúiseach a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, gan moill mhíchuí agus in aon chás laistigh de 24 uair an chloig tar éis don mhonaróir teacht ar an eolas faoi, lena n-áirítear ar a laghad an bhfuil amhras ann gur ghníomhartha neamhdhleathacha nó mailíseacha ba chúis leis an teagmhas, agus ina léireofar freisin, i gcás inarb infheidhme, na Ballstáit faoina bhfuil an monaróir ar an eolas gur cuireadh a tháirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha ar fáil ar a gcríoch;

(b) 

mura bhfuil an fhaisnéis ábhartha curtha ar fáil cheana, fógra teagmhais, gan moill mhíchuí agus in aon chás laistigh de 72 uair an chloig tar éis don mhonaróir teacht ar an eolas faoin teagmhas, ina soláthrófar faisnéis ghinearálta, i gcás ina mbeidh fáil uirthi, faoi chineál an teagmhais, measúnú tosaigh ar an teagmhas, chomh maith le haon bheart ceartaitheach nó maolaitheach arna dhéanamh, agus bearta ceartaitheacha nó maolaitheacha is féidir le húsáideoirí a dhéanamh, agus ina léireofar freisin, i gcás inarb infheidhme, a íogaire atá an fhaisnéis faoina dtugtar fógra, dar leis an monaróir;

(c) 

mura bhfuil an fhaisnéis ábhartha curtha ar fáil cheana, tuarascáil chríochnaitheach, laistigh de 1 mhí amháin tar éis an fógra teagmhais a chur isteach faoi phointe (b), ina n-áirítear an méid seo a leanas ar a laghad:

(i) 

tuairisc mhionsonraithe ar an teagmhas, lena n-áirítear a dhéine agus a thionchar;

(ii) 

an cineál bagartha nó an bhunchúis ar dócha gur spreag sí an teagmhas;

(iii) 

bearta maolaitheacha arna gcur i bhfeidhm agus bearta maolaitheacha leanúnacha.
Airteagal 14 5.

Chun críocha mhír 3, measfar teagmhas a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha a bheith tromchúiseach sna cásanna seo a leanas:

(a) 

déanann sé difear diúltach, nó d’fhéadfadh sé difear diúltach a dhéanamh, do chumas táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha infhaighteacht, barántúlacht, sláine nó rúndacht sonraí nó feidhmeanna íogaire nó tábhachtacha a chosaint; nó

(b) 

tugadh isteach cód mailíseach nó rinneadh é a fhorghníomhú i dtáirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha nó i gcórais líonraí agus faisnéise úsáideoir an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha dá dheasca, nó d’fheadfadh an méid sin teacht as.
Airteagal 14 6.
I gcás inar gá, féadfaidh an CSIRT atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir a fhaigheann an fógra ar dtús a iarraidh ar mhonaróirí tuarascáil idirmheánach a sholáthar maidir le nuashonruithe ábhartha ar stádas na leochaileachta a shaothraítear go gníomhach nó an teagmhais thromchúisigh a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha.
Airteagal 14 7.
Cuirfear na fógraí dá dtagraítear i míreanna 1 agus 3 den Airteagal seo isteach tríd an ardán tuairiscithe aonair dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 16 agus úsáid á baint as ceann de na críochphointí fógartha leictreonacha dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 16(1). Cuirfear an fógra isteach trí úsáid a bhaint as críochphointe fógartha leictreonach an CSIRT atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir de chuid an Bhallstáit ina bhfuil príomhbhunaíocht na monaróirí san Aontas agus beidh rochtain ag ENISA air an tráth céanna.

Chun críocha an Rialacháin seo, measfar gur sa Bhallstát ina ndéantar na cinntí a bhaineann le cibearshlándáil a tháirgí ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha den chuid is mó atá príomhbhunaíocht mhonaróra san Aontas. Mura féidir an Ballstát sin a chinneadh, measfar go bhfuil an phríomhbhunaíocht sa Bhallstát ina bhfuil an bhunaíocht ina bhfuil an líon is airde fostaithe san Aontas ag an monaróir lena mbaineann.

I gcás nach bhfuil aon phríomhbhunaíocht ag monaróir san Aontas, cuirfidh sé na fógraí dá dtagraítear i míreanna 1 agus 3 isteach trí úsáid a bhaint as críochphointe fógartha leictreonach an CSIRT atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir sa Bhallstát arna chinneadh de bhun an oird seo a leanas agus bunaithe ar an bhfaisnéis atá ar fáil don mhonaróir:

(a) 

an Ballstát ina bhfuil an t-ionadaí údaraithe, atá ag gníomhú thar ceann an mhonaróra don líon is airde táirgí ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha de chuid an mhonaróra sin, bunaithe;

(b) 

an Ballstát ina bhfuil an t-allmhaireoir, a chuireann an líon is airde táirgí ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha de chuid an mhonaróra sin ar an margadh, bunaithe;

(c) 

an Ballstát ina bhfuil an dáileoir, a chuireann an líon is airde táirgí ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha de chuid an mhonaróra sin ar fáil ar an margadh, bunaithe;

(d) 

an Ballstát ina bhfuil an líon is airde úsáideoirí táirgí ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha de chuid an mhonaróra sin lonnaithe.

I ndáil leis an tríú fomhír, pointe (d), féadfaidh monaróir fógraí a bhaineann le haon leochaileacht a shaothraítear go gníomhach nó le haon teagmhas tromchúiseach a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha ina dhiaidh sin a chur faoi bhráid an CSIRT céanna atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoir ar thuairiscigh sé dó den chéad uair.
Airteagal 14 8.
Tar éis don mhonaróir teacht ar an eolas faoi leochaileacht a shaothraítear go gníomhach nó faoi theagmhas tromchúiseach a bhfuil tionchar aige ar shlándáil an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, cuirfidh sé úsáideoirí an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha, cuirfidh sé úsáideoirí an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha a ndéantar difear dóibh, agus i gcás inarb iomchuí na húsáideoirí uile, ar an eolas faoin leochaileacht nó faoin teagmhas sin agus, i gcás inar gá, faoi aon bheart maolaithe riosca agus ceartaitheach is féidir leis na húsáideoirí a úsáid chun tionchar na leochaileachta nó an teagmhais sin a mhaolú, i gcás inarb iomchuí i bhformáid struchtúrtha mheaisín-inléite is féidir a phróiseáil go héasca agus go huathoibríoch. I gcás ina mainníonn an monaróir úsáideoirí an táirge ag a bhfuil eilimintí digiteacha a chur ar an eolas go tráthúil, féadfaidh na CSIRTanna atá ainmnithe mar chomhordaitheoirí dá dtugtar fógra an fhaisnéis sin a sholáthar do na húsáideoirí nuair a mheasfar í a bheith comhréireach agus riachtanach chun tionchar na leochaileachta nó an teagmhais sin a chosc nó a mhaolú.
Airteagal 14 9.
Faoin 11 Nollaig 2025, déanfaidh an Coimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 61 den Rialachán seo chun é a fhorlíonadh trí na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha a shonrú le haghaidh na forais chibearshlándála a chur i bhfeidhm i ndáil le moill a chur ar scaipeadh fógraí dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 16(2) den Rialachán seo. Oibreoidh an Coimisiún i gcomhar le gréasán CSIRTanna arna bhunú de bhun Airteagal 15 de Threoir (AE) 2022/2555 agus le ENISA agus na dréachtghníomhartha tarmligthe á n-ullmhú aige.
Airteagal 14 10.
Féadfaidh an Coimisiún, trí bhíthin gníomhartha cur chun feidhme, formáid agus nósanna imeachta na bhfógraí dá dtagraítear san Airteagal seo agus in Airteagail 15 agus 16 a shonrú tuilleadh. Déanfar na gníomhartha cur chun feidhme sin a ghlacadh i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta scrúdúcháin dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 62(2). Oibreoidh an Coimisiún i gcomhar le gréasán CSIRTanna agus le ENISA agus na dréachtghníomhartha cur chun feidhme sin á n-ullmhú aige.

1.1 Tagairtí

1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta

1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

2. Ceanglais aitheanta

Ceanglais

3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

Caighdeáin
SCF Incident Classification & Prioritization

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

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 identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

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 Incident Stakeholder Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

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 Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data

Description

Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

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 Incident Classification & Prioritization

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

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 identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

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 Incident Stakeholder Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

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 Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data

Description

Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

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 Disclosure of Vulnerabilities

Description

Mechanisms exist to disclose information about vulnerabilities to relevant stakeholders, including:
(1) A description of the vulnerability(ies);
(2) Affected product(s) and/or service(s);
(3) Potential impact of the vulnerability(ies);
(4) Severity of the vulnerability(ies); and
(5) Guidance to remediate the vulnerability(ies).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Notify customers of vulnerabilities in any developed products via email/website

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

∙ Security advisory template and distribution process
∙ security.txt / contact for vulnerability reports

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

∙ Vulnerability disclosure process with advisories (description, impact, remediation)
∙ Coordinated disclosure timelines

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

∙ Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) disclosure process (ISO/IEC 29147)
∙ CVE issuance for product vulnerabilities
∙ Customer notification channels

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

∙ Enterprise coordinated vulnerability disclosure program (ISO/IEC 29147, CNA participation)
∙ Public advisory portal and machine-readable advisories (CSAF)
∙ Regulatory notification (e.g., EU CRA) integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to disclose information about vulnerabilities to relevant stakeholders, including:
(1) A description of the vulnerability(ies);
(2) Affected product(s) and/or service(s);
(3) Potential impact of the vulnerability(ies);
(4) Severity of the vulnerability(ies); and
(5) Guidance to remediate the vulnerability(ies).

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.