+Steering Committee & Program Oversight
---+Status Reporting To Governing Body

Steering Committee & Program Oversight

Description

Mechanisms exist to align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts)
∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service
∙ Fractional security advisor

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

∙ Third-party advisors (subject matter experts)
∙ Virtual CISO (vCISO) service
∙ Informal security advisory committee

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

∙ Steering committee / advisory board
∙ Quarterly security committee meetings with documented minutes
∙ Cross-functional representation (IT, Legal, HR, Operations)

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

∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board
∙ Documented charter with defined roles and meeting cadence
∙ Board-level cybersecurity reporting

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

∙ Formal steering committee / advisory board
∙ Board-level Cybersecurity Committee or subcommittee
∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with board-level access
∙ Independent security advisor / external audit committee

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 align security, compliance and resilience capabilities with business requirements through a steering committee or advisory board, comprised of key cybersecurity, data protection and business executives, which meets formally and on a regular basis.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1. Forbhreathnú

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.

1.1 Tagairtí

1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta

1.3 Rialacháin ghaolmhara

2. Ceanglais aitheanta

Ceanglais

3. Rialacháin ghaolmhara

Rialacháin
EULAW Airteagal 28 Rialachas agus eagrú
EULAW Airteagal 28 Rialachas agus eagrú
EULAW Airteagal 39 Comhpháirteanna an phlean leanúnachais gnó TFC
EULAW Airteagal 5 Rialachas agus eagraíocht
-
EULAW Airteagal 21 Bearta bainistíochta riosca cibearshlándála
-
EULAW Airteagal 5 2

2.   Déanfaidh comhlacht bainistíochta an eintitis airgeadais cur chun feidhme na socruithe uile a bhaineann le creat bainistíochta riosca TFC dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 6(1) a shainiú, a fhormheas, agus a fhormhaoirsiú, agus is é a bheidh freagrach as na socruithe sin a chur chun feidhme.

Chun críocha na chéad fhomhíre, maidir leis an gcomhlacht bainistíochta:

(a)

is air a bheidh an fhreagracht deiridh as rioscaí TFC an eintitis airgeadais a bhainistiú;

(b)

cuirfidh sé beartais i bhfeidhm lena ndírítear ar a áirithiú go gcoimeádfar ardchaighdeáin infhaighteachta, barántúlachta, sláine agus rúndachta sonraí;

(c)

leagfaidh sé síos róil agus freagrachtaí soiléire le haghaidh gach feidhme a bhaineann le TFC agus bunóidh sé socruithe iomchuí rialachais chun cumarsáid, comhar agus comhordú atá éifeachtach agus tráthúil i measc na bhfeidhmeanna sin a áirithiú;

(d)

is air a bheidh an fhreagracht fhoriomlán as an straitéis athléimneachta digití oibríochtúla dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 6(8) a leagan amach agus a fhormheas, lena n-áirítear an leibhéal lamháltais riosca iomchuí maidir le riosca TFC an eintitis airgeadais, dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 6(8), pointe (b), a chinneadh;

(e)

is é a dhéanfaidh cur chun feidhme bheartas leanúnachais gnó TFC agus pleananna freagartha agus athshlánaithe TFC an eintitis airgeadais, dá dtagraítear, faoi seach, in Airteagal 11(1) agus (3), a fhormheas agus a mhaoirsiú, agus a athbhreithniú go tréimhsiúil, ar beartais agus pleananna iad ar féidir a ghlacadh mar bheartas tiomnaithe sonrach ar cuid lárnach de bheartas foriomlán leanúnachais gnó agus de phlean freagartha agus athshlánaithe an eintitis airgeadais é;

(f)

is é a dhéanfaidh pleananna iniúchta inmheánaigh TFC an eintitis airgeadais, iniúchtaí TFC, agus modhnuithe ábharacha orthu sin, a fhormheas agus a athbhreithniú go tréimhsiúil;

(g)

is é a dhéanfaidh an buiséad iomchuí a leithdháileadh agus a athbhreithniú go tréimhsiúil, chun riachtanais athléimneachta digití oibríochtúla an eintitis airgeadais a chomhlíonadh i ndáil le gach cineál acmhainne, lena n-áirítear cláir ábhartha feasachta slándála TFC agus an oiliúint ábhartha san athléimneacht dhigiteach oibríochtúil dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 13(6), agus scileanna TFC don fhoireann ar fad;

(h)

is é a dhéanfaidh beartas an eintitis airgeadais maidir le socruithe i ndáil le húsáid seirbhísí TFC arna soláthar ag soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí a fhormheas agus a athbhreithniú go tréimhsiúil;

(i)

cuirfidh sé bealaí tuairiscithe ar bun, ar an leibhéal corparáideach, chun gur féidir eolas cuí a thabhairt dó i ndáil leis na nithe seo a leanas:

(i)

socruithe arna dtabhairt i gcrích le soláthraithe seirbhísí tríú páirtí TFC maidir leis an úsáid a bhaintear as seirbhísí TFC,

(ii)

aon athruithe ábhartha pleanáilte ábharacha maidir le soláthraithe seirbhísí TFC tríú páirtí,

(iii)

an tionchar a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ag athruithe den sórt sin ar na feidhmeanna criticiúla nó tábhachtacha atá faoi réir na socruithe sin, lena n-áirítear achoimre ar an anailís riosca chun tionchar na n-athruithe sin a mheasúnú, agus ar a laghad mórtheagmhais a bhaineann le TFC agus a dtionchar, chomh maith le bearta freagartha, athshlánaithe agus ceartaitheacha.

Saincheisteanna nasctha

Naisc
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 05
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to relative Control Weighting = 07
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Drought & Water Shortage
blocks Earthquakes
blocks Fire & Wildfires
blocks Floods
blocks Hurricanes & Tropical Storms
blocks Landslides & Debris Flow
blocks Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks
blocks Severe Weather
blocks Space Weather
blocks Thunderstorms & Lightning
blocks Tornadoes
blocks Tsunamis
blocks Volcanoes
blocks Winter Storms & Extreme Cold
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by GOV-09 Steering Committee & Program Oversight – Assessment Procedure
blocks 03.12.03 Continuous Monitoring
blocks GV.RM-01 Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
blocks GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
blocks GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
blocks GV.OV Oversight
blocks GV.OV-01 Cybersecurity risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed to inform and adjust strategy and direction
blocks GV.OV-02 The cybersecurity risk management strategy is reviewed and adjusted to ensure coverage of organizational requirements and risks
blocks GV.OV-03 Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks PR PROTECT
blocks PR.IR Technology Infrastructure Resilience
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.