+Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
---+AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts
|
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.
1. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Standard |
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.
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
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regolamentazioni correlate
Regolamentazioni
| Fonte |
Regolamentazione |
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 17 Sistema di gestione della qualità
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 Principi generali
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 Principi generali
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 1
1. Le entità finanziarie gestiscono i rischi informatici derivanti da terzi quali componenti integranti dei rischi informatici nel contesto del proprio quadro per la gestione di detti rischi di cui all’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, e conformemente ai principi indicati di seguito:
|
a)
|
le entità finanziarie che hanno stipulato accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC per lo svolgimento delle proprie operazioni commerciali rimangono sempre pienamente responsabili del rispetto e dell’adempimento di tutti gli obblighi previsti dal presente regolamento e dalla normativa applicabile in materia di servizi finanziari;
|
|
b)
|
la gestione dei rischi informatici derivanti da terzi da parte delle entità finanziarie si svolge nel rispetto del principio di proporzionalità, tenendo conto:
|
i)
|
della natura, della portata, della complessità e dell’importanza delle dipendenze connesse alle TIC;
|
|
ii)
|
dei rischi derivanti dagli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC conclusi con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC, tenendo conto della criticità o dell’importanza dei rispettivi servizi, processi o funzioni e del potenziale impatto sulla continuità e la disponibilità delle attività e dei servizi finanziari a livello individuale e di gruppo.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 2
2. Nel contesto del quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici TIC, le entità finanziarie diverse dalle entità di cui all’articolo 16, paragrafo 1, primo comma, e dalle microimprese adottano e riesaminano periodicamente una strategia per i rischi informatici derivanti da terzi, tenendo conto della strategia basata su una varietà di fornitori di cui all’articolo 6, paragrafo 9, ove applicabile. Tale strategia comprende una politica per l’utilizzo dei servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti prestati da fornitori terzi e si applica su base individuale e, se del caso, su base subconsolidata e consolidata. Sulla base di una valutazione del profilo di rischio complessivo dell’entità finanziaria e della portata e della complessità dei servizi operativi, l’organo di gestione riesamina periodicamente i rischi individuati in relazione agli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 3
3. Nel contesto del quadro per la gestione dei rischi informatici, le entità finanziarie mantengono e aggiornano a livello di entità, e su base subconsolidata e consolidata, un registro di informazioni su tutti gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC prestati da fornitori terzi.
Gli accordi contrattuali di cui al primo comma sono opportunamente documentati, distinguendo quelli che si riferiscono a servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti dagli altri.
Le entità finanziarie comunicano almeno una volta all’anno alle autorità competenti il numero di nuovi accordi per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC, le categorie di fornitori terzi di servizi TIC, il tipo di accordi contrattuali e le funzioni e i servizi TIC forniti.
Su richiesta, le entità finanziarie mettono a disposizione dell’autorità competente il registro delle informazioni completo o, a seconda della richiesta, determinate sezioni del registro insieme alle informazioni giudicate necessarie per consentire l’efficace vigilanza sull’entità finanziaria.
Le entità finanziarie informano tempestivamente l’autorità competente in merito a eventuali accordi contrattuali previsti per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti, nonché del momento in cui una funzione diventa essenziale o importante.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 4
4. Prima di stipulare un accordo contrattuale per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC, le entità finanziarie:
|
a)
|
valutano se l’accordo contrattuale riguardi l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di una funzione essenziale o importante;
|
|
b)
|
verificano se siano soddisfatte le condizioni di vigilanza per la conclusione del contratto;
|
|
c)
|
identificano e valutano tutti i rischi pertinenti relativi all’accordo contrattuale, compresa la possibilità che tale accordo contrattuale possa aggravare il rischio di concentrazione delle TIC di cui all’articolo 29;
|
|
d)
|
effettuano controlli di dovuta diligenza (due diligence) sui potenziali fornitori terzi di servizi TIC e ne garantiscono l’idoneità lungo tutto il processo di selezione e valutazione;
|
|
e)
|
individuano e valutano i conflitti d’interessi che possano derivare dall’accordo contrattuale.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 5
5. Le entità finanziarie possono stipulare accordi contrattuali soltanto con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC che soddisfano standard appropriati in materia di sicurezza delle informazioni. Laddove tali accordi contrattuali riguardino funzioni essenziali o importanti, le entità finanziarie, prima di concludere detti accordi, prendono in debita considerazione l’utilizzo da parte dei fornitori terzi di servizi TIC degli standard di qualità più aggiornati ed elevati in materia di sicurezza delle informazioni.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 6
6. Nell’esercizio dei diritti di accesso, ispezione e audit nei confronti del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, le entità finanziarie predeterminano, sulla base di un approccio basato sul rischio, la frequenza delle verifiche di audit e delle ispezioni nonché i settori da sottoporre ad audit, aderendo a standard di audit comunemente accettate in conformità di eventuali indicazioni di vigilanza sull’uso e l’integrazione di tali standard di audit.
Laddove gli accordi contrattuali conclusi con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC comportino un’elevata complessità tecnica, l’entità finanziaria verifica che i revisori, indipendentemente dal fatto che siano revisori interni o esterni o siano un gruppo di revisori, possiedano competenze e conoscenze adeguate per svolgere efficacemente gli audit e le valutazioni del caso.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 7
7. Le entità finanziarie stabiliscono clausole che consentano la risoluzione degli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC in una qualsiasi delle circostanze seguenti:
|
a)
|
rilevante violazione, da parte del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, di leggi, regolamenti o condizioni contrattuali applicabili;
|
|
b)
|
circostanze, identificate nel corso del monitoraggio dei rischi informatici derivanti da terzi, ritenute suscettibili di alterare l’esercizio delle funzioni previsto a norma dell’accordo contrattuale, tra cui modifiche di rilievo che incidano sull’accordo o sulla situazione del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC;
|
|
c)
|
punti deboli del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC emersi riguardo alla sua gestione complessiva dei rischi informatici e, in particolare, nel modo in cui il fornitore garantisce la disponibilità, autenticità, integrità e riservatezza dei dati, siano essi dati personali o altrimenti sensibili, oppure dei dati non personali;
|
|
d)
|
laddove l’autorità competente non sia più in grado di vigilare efficacemente sull’entità finanziaria per via delle condizioni dell’accordo contrattuale in questione o delle circostanze ivi afferenti.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 28 8
8. Per i servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti, le entità finanziarie predispongono strategie di uscita. Tali strategie tengono conto dei rischi che possono emergere a livello dei fornitori terzi di servizi TIC, in particolare possibili disfunzioni dei fornitori stessi, il deterioramento della qualità dei servizi TIC forniti, una perturbazione dell’attività commerciale conseguente a una fornitura di servizi TIC inadeguata o carente, oppure gravi rischi connessi all’adeguatezza e alla continuità dell’esercizio del rispettivo servizio TIC oppure la risoluzione di accordi contrattuali con fornitori terzi di servizi TIC in una delle circostanze di cui al paragrafo 7.
Le entità finanziarie garantiscono di poter porre termine agli accordi contrattuali senza:
|
a)
|
perturbare le proprie attività commerciali;
|
|
b)
|
limitare il rispetto dei requisiti normativi;
|
|
c)
|
pregiudicare la continuità e la qualità dei servizi forniti ai clienti.
|
I piani di uscita sono esaustivi, documentati e, conformemente ai criteri di cui all’articolo 4, paragrafo 2, sottoposti a test adeguati e riesaminati periodicamente.
Le entità finanziarie identificano soluzioni alternative ed elaborano piani di transizione che consentano loro di trasferire i servizi TIC previsti dal contratto e i relativi dati dal fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, in maniera sicura e nella loro interezza, a fornitori alternativi oppure reintegrarli al proprio interno.
Le entità finanziarie dispongono di misure di emergenza idonee per mantenere la continuità operativa qualora si verifichino le circostanze di cui al primo comma.
|
Ticket collegati
Collegamenti
| Tipo di collegamento |
Ticket |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
SSO-01.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
RSK-20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles |
|
blocks
|
PM-30 Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy |
|
blocks
|
SA-09(03) Establish and Maintain Trust Relationship with Providers |
|
blocks
|
SR-02 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan |
|
blocks
|
SR-07 Supply Chain Operations Security |
|
blocks
|
SR-02 [L] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan |
|
blocks
|
SR-02 [M] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan |
|
blocks
|
SR-02 [H] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.11.01 Risk Assessment |
|
blocks
|
03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational … |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of … |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored … |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service … |
|
blocks
|
ID IDENTIFY |
|
blocks
|
ID.RA Risk Assessment |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM Improvement |
|
blocks
|
PR PROTECT |
- 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.
|