+Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
---+Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
---+Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Simulated events
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR 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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD 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 tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Áttekintés
| Megnevezés |
Szabvány |
|
Coordinated Testing with Related Plans
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external parties responsible for related plans.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Tabletop exercises
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Tabletop exercises
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Tabletop exercises
∙ Red Team testing
∙ Penetration testing
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR 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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD 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 coordinate contingency plan testing with internal and external elements responsible for related plans.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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.
|
|
Contingency Plan Testing For Alternate Storage & Processing Sites
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Failover testing
∙ On-site visit to alternate site(s)
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A dedicated alternate site(s) is/are equipped to be compatible with the production network's processing, storage, connectivity and other infrastructure needs.
▪ Alternate sites are given priority of service to meet applicable RTOs and/or RPOs.
▪ RTOs are used to identify business-critical TAASD, which are given priority of service in alternate processing and storage sites.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD 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 test contingency plans at alternate storage & processing sites to both familiarize contingency personnel with the facility and evaluate the capabilities of the alternate processing site to support contingency operations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Hivatkozások
1.2 Azonosított követelmények
1.3 Kapcsolódó szabályozások
2. Azonosított követelmények
Követelmények
| Forrás |
Követelmény |
3. Kapcsolódó szabályozások
Szabályozások
| Forrás |
Szabályozás |
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági politika elemei
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági politika elemei
|
|
EULAW
|
25. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
25. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
25. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
25. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
25. cikk Az IKT-üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
27. cikk Az IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszer felülvizsgálatáról szóló jelentés formátuma és tartalma
|
|
EULAW
|
40. cikk Az üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
40. cikk Az üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
40. cikk Az üzletmenet-folytonossági tervek tesztelése
|
|
EULAW
|
11. cikk Reagálás és helyreállítás
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk A digitális működési reziliencia tesztelésének végrehajtására vonatkozó általános követelmények
|
|
EULAW
|
11. cikk (4)
A pénzügyi szervezeteknek – különösen a harmadik fél IKT-szolgáltatókkal kötött megállapodások keretében kiszervezett vagy megbízásba adott kritikus vagy lényeges funkciókra vonatkozóan – megfelelő IKT-üzletmenetfolytonossági terveket kell bevezetniük és fenntartaniuk, amelyeket időszakonként tesztelniük kell.
|
|
EULAW
|
11. cikk (6)
Átfogó IKT-kockázatkezelésük keretében a pénzügyi szervezeteknek:
a)
tesztelniük kell az IKT-üzletmenetfolytonossági terveket és az IKT-reagálási és -helyreállítási terveket a valamennyi funkciót támogató IKT-rendszerekhez kapcsolódóan legalább évente, valamint a kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató IKT-rendszereket érintő bármely jelentős változás bekövetkezése esetén;
b)
tesztelniük kell a 14. cikknek megfelelően kialakított válsághelyzeti kommunikációs terveket.
Az első albekezdés a) pontjának alkalmazásában a mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek a tesztelési terveikben szerepeltetniük kell a kibertámadásokra, továbbá az elsődleges IKT-infrastruktúrájuk és a 12. cikkben meghatározott kötelezettségek teljesítéséhez szükséges tartalékkapacitás, biztonsági mentések és tartalékeszközök közötti átállásokra vonatkozó forgatókönyveket. A pénzügyi szervezeteknek rendszeresen felül kell vizsgálniuk az IKT-üzletmenetfolytonossági politikájukat, valamint az IKT-reagálási és -helyreállítási terveiket, figyelembe véve az első albekezdés szerint elvégzett tesztek eredményeit, valamint az ellenőrzések és felügyeleti felülvizsgálatok alapján megfogalmazott ajánlásokat.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (1)
Az IKT-vonatkozású incidensek kezelésére való felkészültség értékelése, a digitális működési reziliencia gyengeségeinek, hiányosságainak és lefedetlenségeinek azonosítása, valamint a korrekciós intézkedések gyors végrehajtása érdekében a mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek a 4. cikk (2) bekezdésében meghatározott kritériumok figyelembevételével a digitális működési reziliencia tesztelésére megbízható és átfogó programot kell kialakítaniuk, fenntartaniuk és felülvizsgálniuk, a 6. cikkben említett IKT-kockázatkezelési keretrendszer integráns részeként.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (2)
A digitális működési reziliencia tesztelését szolgáló programnak magában kell foglalnia a 25. és 26. cikkel összhangban alkalmazandó értékeléseket, teszteket, módszertanokat, gyakorlatokat és eszközöket.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (3)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek az e cikk (1) bekezdésében említett, a digitális működési reziliencia tesztelését szolgáló program lefolytatása során – a 4. cikk (2) bekezdésében meghatározott kritériumokat figyelembe véve – kockázatalapú megközelítést kell követniük, kellően tekintetbe véve az IKT-kockázat változó környezetét, minden olyan konkrét kockázatot, amelynek az érintett pénzügyi szervezet ki van vagy ki lehet téve, az információs vagyonelemek és a nyújtott szolgáltatások kritikusságát, valamint a pénzügyi szervezet által megfelelőnek tartott bármely egyéb tényezőt.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (4)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a teszteket független belső vagy külső fél hajtsa végre. Amennyiben a teszteket belső tesztelő végzi, a pénzügyi szervezeteknek elegendő erőforrást kell elkülöníteniük, és biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a teszt tervezési és végrehajtási szakaszában ne legyenek összeférhetetlenségek.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (5)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek eljárásokat és szabályzatokat kell kialakítaniuk a tesztek lefolytatása során feltárt valamennyi probléma rangsorolása, osztályozása és orvoslása céljából, továbbá ki kell alakítaniuk azon belső validálási módszertanokat, amelyekkel megerősíthető, hogy a szervezet maradéktalanul kezelte az azonosított gyengeségeket és hiányosságokat.
|
|
EULAW
|
24. cikk (6)
A mikrovállalkozásnak nem minősülő pénzügyi szervezeteknek legalább évente biztosítaniuk kell, hogy megfelelő teszteket végezzenek a kritikus vagy fontos funkciókat támogató valamennyi IKT-rendszeren és -alkalmazáson.
|
Kapcsolt feladatok
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|