+Position Categorization
---+Users With Elevated Privileges
---+Competency Requirements for Security, Compliance & Resilience-Related Positions
|
Position Categorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to manage personnel security risk by assigning a risk designation to all positions and establishing screening criteria for individuals filling those positions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Employee security policy acknowledgment ∙ Background check for sensitive roles
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Security awareness policy ∙ Background checks ∙ Security onboarding checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ HR security program ∙ Background checks for all staff ∙ Security onboarding training
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise HR security program ∙ Background screening service ∙ Automated offboarding workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise HR security framework ∙ Background screening platform ∙ Integrated HR/IAM offboarding ∙ Continuous monitoring
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ HR, in conjunction with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel, evaluates the business-critical cybersecurity and data protection skills needed to support the organization's mission.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ The HR department, in conjunction with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel, evaluates the business-critical cybersecurity and data protection skills needed to support the organization's mission and identify gaps that exist.
Level 3 Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with HRS 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 manage personnel security risk by assigning a risk designation to all positions and establishing screening criteria for individuals filling those positions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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
| Teideal |
Caighdeán |
|
Users With Elevated Privileges
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that every user accessing Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that process, store and/or transmit sensitive and/or regulated data is cleared and regularly trained to handle the information in question.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Employee security policy acknowledgment ∙ Background check for sensitive roles
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Security awareness policy ∙ Background checks ∙ Security onboarding checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ HR security program ∙ Background checks for all staff ∙ Security onboarding training
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise HR security program ∙ Background screening service ∙ Automated offboarding workflows
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise HR security framework ∙ Background screening platform ∙ Integrated HR/IAM offboarding ∙ Continuous monitoring
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ The HR department, in conjunction with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel, evaluates risk for individuals requiring elevated privileges or access to sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with HRS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure that every user accessing Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that process, store and/or transmit sensitive/regulated data is cleared and regularly trained to handle the information in question.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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.
|
|
Competency Requirements for Security, Compliance & Resilience-Related Positions
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure that all security, compliance and resilience-related positions are staffed by qualified individuals who have the necessary skill set.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Demonstrated Subject Matter Expert (SME) experience ∙ Professional references ∙ Education / certification transcripts
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Demonstrated Subject Matter Expert (SME) experience ∙ Professional references ∙ Education / certification transcripts
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Demonstrated Subject Matter Expert (SME) experience ∙ Professional references ∙ Education / certification transcripts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Demonstrated Subject Matter Expert (SME) experience ∙ Professional references ∙ Education / certification transcripts
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Demonstrated Subject Matter Expert (SME) experience ∙ Professional references ∙ Education / certification transcripts
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
Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ Formal roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity and/or data protection are not consistent and/or standardized.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with HRS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure that all security-related positions are staffed by qualified individuals who have the necessary skill set.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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.
|
1.1 Tagairtí
1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta
1.3 Rialacháin ghaolmhara
2. Ceanglais aitheanta
Ceanglais
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
3. Rialacháin ghaolmhara
Rialacháin
| Foinse |
Rialáil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Airteagal 32 Slándáil na próiseála
-
|
Saincheisteanna nasctha
Naisc
| Cineál naisc |
Saincheist |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
People |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
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
|
Lack of a security-minded workforce |
|
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 = 08 |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
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
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
OIS-04.01B |
|
blocks
|
HR-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
HR-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
HR-01.06B |
|
is blocked by
|
HRS-03 Position Categorization – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
PS-02 Position Risk Designation |
|
blocks
|
PS-02 [L] Position Risk Designation |
|
blocks
|
PS-02 [M] Position Risk Designation |
|
blocks
|
PS-02 [H] Position Risk Designation |
|
blocks
|
03.01.01 Account Management |
|
blocks
|
03.01.02 Access Enforcement |
|
blocks
|
03.09.01 Personnel Screening |
|
blocks
|
03.15.03 Rules of Behavior |
|
blocks
|
GV.RR-02 Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced |
|
blocks
|
PR.AA-05 Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of … |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|