+28. cikk Általános elvek
---+28. cikk (1)
---+28. cikk (2)
---+28. cikk (3)
---+28. cikk (4)
---+28. cikk (5)
---+28. cikk (6)
---+28. cikk (7)
---+28. cikk (8)
---+28. cikk (9)
---+28. cikk (10)

28. cikk Általános elvek

1. Áttekintés

,

Megnevezés	Szabályozás
28. cikk (1)	A pénzügyi szervezeteknek a harmadik féltől eredő IKT-kockázatot az IKT-kockázat integráns összetevőjeként kell kezelniük a 6. cikk (1) bekezdésében említett IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszerükön belül és a következő elvekkel összhangban: a) azon pénzügyi szervezeteknek, amelyek üzleti tevékenységük folytatásához IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodást kötöttek, mindenkor teljes felelősséggel kell tartozniuk az e rendeletben és az alkalmazandó, pénzügyi szolgáltatásokra vonatkozó jogszabályokban előírt kötelezettségeknek való megfelelésért; b) a pénzügyi szervezeteknek a harmadik féltől eredő IKT-kockázat kezelését az arányosság elvének megfelelően, a következők figyelembevételével kell megvalósítaniuk: i. az IKT-vonatkozású függőségek jellege, nagyságrendje, összetettsége és fontossága; ii. a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatókkal kötött, IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodásokból eredő kockázatok, figyelembe véve a vonatkozó szolgáltatás, folyamat vagy funkció kritikusságát vagy fontosságát, valamint a pénzügyi szolgáltatások és tevékenységek folytonosságára és rendelkezésre állására egyedi és csoportszinten gyakorolt potenciális hatást.
28. cikk (2)	Az IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszerük részeként a 16. cikk (1) bekezdésének első albekezdésében említett szervezetektől eltérő és mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek – adott esetben a 6. cikk (9) bekezdésében említett, több beszállítóra épülő stratégia figyelembevételével – a harmadik féltől eredő IKT-kockázatra vonatkozó stratégiát kell elfogadniuk és rendszeresen felülvizsgálniuk. A harmadik féltől eredő IKT-kockázatra vonatkozó azon stratégiának, amelyet az egyedi szervezet szintjén, valamint adott esetben szubkonszolidált és konszolidált alapon is alkalmazni kell, magában kell foglalnia a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatók által nyújtott, kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételére vonatkozó szabályzatot. A vezető testületnek a pénzügyi szervezet általános kockázati profiljának, valamint az üzleti szolgáltatások nagyságrendjének és összetettségének értékelése alapján rendszeresen felül kell vizsgálnia a kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodásokkal kapcsolatban azonosított kockázatokat.
28. cikk (3)	IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszerük részeként a pénzügyi szervezeteknek az egyedi szervezet szintjén, valamint szubkonszolidált és konszolidált szinten információ-nyilvántartást kell vezetniük és naprakészen tartaniuk a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatók által nyújtott IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló valamennyi szerződéses megállapodásról. Az első albekezdésben említett szerződéses megállapodásokat megfelelően dokumentálni kell, megkülönböztetve azokat, amelyek kiterjednek a kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatásokra, és azokat, amelyek nem. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek legalább évente jelentést kell tenniük az illetékes hatóságoknak az IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló új megállapodások számáról, a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatók kategóriáiról, a szerződéses megállapodások típusairól, valamint a nyújtott IKT-szolgáltatásokról és -funkciókról. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek az illetékes hatóság kérésére annak rendelkezésére kell bocsátaniuk a teljes információ- nyilvántartást, vagy a kérésnek megfelelően annak meghatározott részeit, a pénzügyi szervezet eredményes felügyeletéhez szükségesnek ítélt bármely információval együtt. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek időben tájékoztatniuk kell az illetékes hatóságot bármely, kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló, tervezett szerződéses megállapodásról, valamint arról, ha egy funkció kritikussá vagy fontossá válik.
28. cikk (4)	Az IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodások megkötése előtt a pénzügyi szervezetek: a) értékelik, hogy a szerződéses megállapodás érinti-e kritikus vagy fontos funkciót támogató IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételét; b) értékelik, hogy teljesülnek-e a szerződéskötés felügyeleti feltételei; c) azonosítják és értékelik a szerződéses megállapodással összefüggő valamennyi releváns kockázatot, beleértve annak lehetőségét is, hogy a szerződéses megállapodás hozzájárulhat a 29. cikkben említett IKT-koncentrációs kockázat erősödéséhez; d) elvégzik a leendő harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltató teljeskörű átvilágítását, továbbá a kiválasztási és értékelési folyamatok során meggyőződnek a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltató alkalmasságáról; e) azonosítják és értékelik a szerződéses megállapodással esetlegesen okozott összeférhetetlenséget.
28. cikk (5)	A pénzügyi szervezetek csak azon harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatókkal köthetnek szerződéses megállapodást, amelyek megfelelnek a rájuk vonatkozó információbiztonsági szabványoknak. Amennyiben az említett szerződéses megállapodások kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat érintenek, a pénzügyi szervezeteknek a megállapodások megkötése előtt kellően figyelembe kell venniük a legfrissebb és legjobb minőségű információbiztonsági szabványok harmadik fél IKT- szolgáltatók általi alkalmazását.
28. cikk (6)	A harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltató kapcsán a hozzáférési, ellenőrzési és audit jogok gyakorlásakor a pénzügyi szervezetek kockázatalapú megközelítés alapján előzetesen megállapítják az auditok és ellenőrzések gyakoriságát, valamint azon területeket, amelyeket az általánosan elfogadott audit standardoknak és az ilyen audit standardok alkalmazására és beépítésére vonatkozó felügyeleti utasításnak megfelelően auditálni szükséges. Amennyiben a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatókkal az IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről kötött szerződéses megállapodások nagy fokú technikai összetettséggel járnak, a pénzügyi szervezetnek meg kell győződnie arról, hogy az ellenőrök – attól függetlenül, hogy belső vagy külső ellenőrről, vagy ellenőrök csoportjáról van szó – rendelkeznek-e a releváns auditok és értékelések eredményes elvégzéséhez szükséges készségekkel és ismeretekkel.
28. cikk (7)	A pénzügyi szervezetek biztosítják, hogy az IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodásokat meg lehessen szüntetni a következő körülmények bármelyikének fennállása esetén: a) a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltató jelentősen megsérti az alkalmazandó jogszabályi, hatósági és szerződéses rendelkezéseket; b) a harmadik féltől eredő IKT-kockázat monitorozása olyan körülményeket tár fel, amelyek alkalmasnak tekinthetők arra, hogy befolyásolják a szerződéses megállapodás keretében ellátott funkciók teljesítményét, ideértve a megállapodást vagy a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltató helyzetét érintő lényeges módosításokat is; c) a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatónál az általános IKT-kockázatkezelését érintő, bizonyítható gyengeségek tapasztalhatók és különösen azon mód, ahogyan biztosítja az adatok akár személyes, akár egyébként érzékeny adatok, vagy nem személyes adatok rendelkezésre állását, hitelességét, integritását és bizalmas jellegét; d) amennyiben a vonatkozó szerződéses megállapodással kapcsolatos feltételek vagy körülmények eredményeként az illetékes hatóság már nem tudja eredményesen felügyelni a pénzügyi szervezetet.
28. cikk (8)	A kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatások esetében a pénzügyi szervezeteknek kilépési stratégiákat kell bevezetniük. A kilépési stratégiáknak figyelembe kell venniük a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatók szintjén esetlegesen felmerülő kockázatokat, így különösen a részükről bekövetkező lehetséges mulasztást, a nyújtott IKT- szolgáltatások minőségének romlását, a szolgáltatások nem megfelelő nyújtása vagy meghiúsulása miatt az üzletmenetben okozott súlyos zavart, vagy a vonatkozó IKT-szolgáltatás megfelelő és folyamatos ellátásával kapcsolatban felmerülő bármely lényeges kockázatot, vagy a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatókkal kötött szerződéses megállapodások felmondását a (7) bekezdésben felsorolt körülmények bármelyikének esetében. A pénzügyi szervezetek biztosítják, hogy képesek kilépni a szerződéses megállapodásokból anélkül, hogy: a) zavar keletkezne üzleti tevékenységükben; b) korlátozottá válna a szabályozási követelményeknek való megfelelésük; c) sérülne az ügyfeleknek nyújtott szolgáltatások folytonossága és minősége. A kilépési terveknek átfogóaknak kell lenniük, azokat dokumentálni kell, valamint – a 4. cikk (2) bekezdésében foglalt kritériumokkal összhangban – megfelelően tesztelni és időszakonként felülvizsgálni. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek alternatív megoldásokat kell azonosítaniuk és átállási terveket kidolgozniuk, amelyek lehetővé teszik számukra, hogy a szerződéses megbízásba adott IKT-szolgáltatásokat és a releváns adatokat leválasszák a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatóról, és azokat biztonságosan és teljeskörűen alternatív szolgáltatókhoz telepítsék, vagy visszaszervezzék a saját működésükbe. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek az üzletmenet folytonosságát biztosító, megfelelő rendkívüli intézkedésekkel kell rendelkezniük az első albekezdésben említett körülmények esetén.
28. cikk (9)	Az EFH-knak a vegyes bizottság keretében olyan végrehajtás-technikai standardtervezeteket kell kidolgozniuk, amelyek meghatározzák a (3) bekezdésben említett információ-nyilvántartás céljából a mintadokumentumokat, ideértve az IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló valamennyi szerződéses megállapodás esetében közös információkat. Az EFH-knak az említett szabályozástechnikai standardtervezeteket 2024. január 17-ig be kell nyújtaniuk a Bizottságnak. A Bizottság felhatalmazást kap arra, hogy az 1093/2010/EU, az 1094/2010/EU és az 1095/2010/EU rendelet 15. cikkével összhangban elfogadja az első albekezdésben említett végrehajtás-technikai standardokat.
28. cikk (10)	Az EFH-knak a vegyes bizottság keretében szabályozástechnikai standardtervezeteket kell kidolgozniuk, amelyek részletesen meghatározzák a (2) bekezdésben említett szabályzat tartalmi elemeit a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatók által nyújtott, kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-szolgáltatások igénybevételéről szóló szerződéses megállapodások tekintetében. Az említett szabályozástechnikai standardtervezetek kidolgozása során az EFH-knak figyelembe kell venniük a pénzügyi szervezet méretét és általános kockázati profilját, valamint szolgáltatásai, tevékenységei és műveletei jellegét, nagyságrendjét és összetettségét. Az EFH-knak az említett szabályozástechnikai standardtervezeteket 2024. január 17-ig be kell nyújtaniuk a Bizottságnak. A Bizottság felhatalmazást kap arra, hogy az 1093/2010/EU, az 1094/2010/EU és az 1095/2010/EU rendelet 10–14. cikkével összhangban az első albekezdésben említett szabályozástechnikai standardok elfogadása útján kiegészítse ezt a rendeletet.

1.1 Hivatkozások

AT 9 Tz 1

1.2 Azonosított követelmények

1.3 Kapcsolódó szabványok

2. Azonosított követelmények

Követelmények
Forrás	Követelmény

3. Kapcsolódó szabványok

Szabványok
Forrás	Követelmény
SCF	Alternate Sources for Continued Support Description Mechanisms exist to provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160). ▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments. Level 3 Well Defined Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST 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 provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously Improving Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF	Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Description Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan 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 Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. Level 2 Planned Tracked Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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	Supply Chain Risk Assessment (SCRA) Description Mechanisms exist to periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) 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 Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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	Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Description Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan 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 Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. Level 2 Planned Tracked Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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	Supply Chain Risk Assessment (SCRA) Description Mechanisms exist to periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Risk Management Program (RMP) ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) 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 Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s). Level 3 Well Defined Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Risk Management (RSK) 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	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Review of Third-Party Services Description Mechanisms exist to monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Break Clauses Description Mechanisms exist to include "break clauses" within contracts for failure to meet contract criteria for security, compliance and/or resilience controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Contracts with ESP contain break clauses to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on ESP cybersecurity and/or data protection practices deficiency(ies). Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 include "break clauses" within contracts for failure to meet contract criteria for security, compliance and/or resilience controls. 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	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously Improving Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Builddate: 27.12.2022 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32022R2554
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/