+Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
---+Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Vendor due diligence checklist ∙ Third-party security questionnaire (e.g., CAIQ, SIG)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vendor security questionnaire (CAIQ or SIG) ∙ Third-party risk assessment prior to outsourcing
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Third-party risk management program ∙ Vendor security assessments with contractual security obligations ∙ Contract security requirements for outsourced functions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Third-party risk management (TPRM) program ∙ Vendor SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification requirements ∙ Contractual security and compliance obligations
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise TPRM program with automated vendor risk assessment ∙ Third-party risk ratings (e.g., BitSight, SecurityScorecard) ∙ Contractual oversight and audit rights for outsourced functions
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
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 ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Standard |
|
Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify non-core IT functions suitable for outsourcing (e.g., email hosting)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented list of outsourced non-essential functions with security requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Outsourcing decisions aligned with business strategy and risk assessment ∙ Security requirements in outsourcing contracts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Sourcing strategy identifying outsourceable non-essential functions ∙ Third-party risk assessment before outsourcing ∙ Contractual security requirements
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sourcing governance aligned with business strategy and C-SCRM ∙ Outsourcing risk assessments and regulatory notifications where required
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
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 identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
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 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 29 2
2. Qualora gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti prevedano la possibilità che un fornitore terzo di servizi TIC subappalti a sua volta servizi TIC a supporto di una funzione essenziale o importante ad altri fornitori terzi di servizi TIC, le entità finanziarie vagliano i benefici e i rischi che possono derivare da tale subappalto, in particolare nel caso di un subappaltatore di TIC stabilito in un paese terzo.
Qualora gli accordi contrattuali riguardino servizi TIC a supporto delle funzioni essenziali o importanti, le entità finanziarie tengono in debita considerazione le disposizioni del diritto fallimentare applicabili in caso di fallimento del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC come pure eventuali restrizioni relative all’urgente ripristino dei dati dell’entità finanziaria.
Qualora gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti siano conclusi con un fornitore terzo di servizi TIC stabilito in un paese terzo, le entità finanziarie, in aggiunta alle considerazioni di cui al secondo comma, tengono conto altresì del rispetto delle norme dell’UE sulla protezione dei dati e dell’effettiva applicazione della legge in tale paese terzo.
Qualora gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti prevedano un subappalto, le entità finanziarie valutano se e come catene di subappalti potenzialmente lunghe e complesse possano incidere sulla loro capacità di monitorare pienamente le funzioni appaltate e sulla capacità dell’autorità competente di vigilare efficacemente, a tal proposito, sull’entità finanziaria.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 1
1. I diritti e gli obblighi dell’entità finanziaria e del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC sono attribuiti chiaramente e definiti per iscritto. Il testo integrale del contratto comprende gli accordi sul livello dei servizi ed è contenuto in un documento scritto disponibile alle parti in formato cartaceo oppure in un documento in altro formato scaricabile, durevole e accessibile.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 2
2. Gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC comprendono almeno gli elementi seguenti:
|
a)
|
la descrizione chiara e completa di tutte le funzioni che il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC deve svolgere e tutti i servizi TIC che deve prestare, comprese l’indicazione dell’eventuale autorizzazione a subappaltare un servizio TIC a sostegno di una funzione essenziale o importante o parti significative di essa e, in caso affermativo, le condizioni di tale subappalto;
|
|
b)
|
le località, segnatamente le regioni o i paesi, in cui si devono svolgere le funzioni e prestare i servizi TIC appaltati o subappaltati e in cui si devono trattare i dati, compreso il luogo di conservazione, nonché l’obbligo, per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, di segnalare in anticipo all’entità finanziaria l’intenzione di cambiare tale o tali località;
|
|
c)
|
le disposizioni in materia di disponibilità, autenticità, integrità e riservatezza in relazione alla protezione dei dati, compresi i dati personali;
|
|
d)
|
le disposizioni relative alle garanzie di accesso, ripristino e restituzione, in un formato facilmente accessibile, di dati personali e non personali trattati dall’entità finanziaria in caso di insolvenza, risoluzione o interruzione delle operazioni commerciali del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC o in caso di risoluzione degli accordi commerciali;
|
|
e)
|
le descrizioni dei livelli di servizio, compresi relativi aggiornamenti e revisioni;
|
|
f)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di prestare assistenza all’entità finanziaria senza costi aggiuntivi o a un costo stabilito ex ante, qualora si verifichi un incidente connesso alle TIC relativo al servizio TIC fornito all’entità finanziaria;
|
|
g)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi di TIC di operare senza riserve con le autorità competenti e con le autorità di risoluzione dell’entità finanziaria, comprese le persone da queste nominate;
|
|
h)
|
i diritti di risoluzione e il relativo termine minimo di preavviso per la risoluzione degli accordi contrattuali, conformemente alle attese delle autorità competenti e delle autorità di risoluzione;
|
|
i)
|
le condizioni riguardanti la partecipazione dei fornitori terzi di servizi TIC ai programmi di sensibilizzazione sulla sicurezza delle TIC e alle attività di formazione sulla resilienza operativa digitale delle entità finanziarie conformemente all’articolo 13, paragrafo 6.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 3
3. Gli accordi contrattuali per l’utilizzo di servizi TIC a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti comprendono, in aggiunta agli elementi di cui al paragrafo 2, almeno quanto segue:
|
a)
|
la descrizione completa dei livelli di servizio, comprendente i relativi aggiornamenti e revisioni con precisi obiettivi quantitativi e qualitativi, in termini di prestazioni, nell’ambito dei livelli di servizio concordati, in modo da consentire un monitoraggio efficace da parte dell’entità finanziaria dei servizi TIC e l’applicazione, senza indebito ritardo, di opportune azioni correttive qualora i livelli di servizio concordati non siano rispettati;
|
|
b)
|
termini di preavviso e obblighi di segnalazione per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC nei confronti dell’entità finanziaria, tra cui la notifica di eventuali sviluppi che potrebbero esercitare un impatto significativo sulla capacità del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di prestare servizi a supporto di funzioni essenziali o importanti efficacemente, in linea con i livelli di servizio concordati;
|
|
c)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di attuare e testare i piani operativi d’emergenza e di predisporre misure, strumenti e politiche per la sicurezza delle TIC che offrano un adeguato livello di sicurezza per la fornitura dei servizi da parte dell’entità finanziaria, in linea con il proprio quadro normativo;
|
|
d)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di partecipare e cooperare pienamente al TLPT dell’entità finanziaria di cui agli articoli 26 e 27;
|
|
e)
|
il diritto di monitorare costantemente le prestazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, che comporta quanto segue:
|
i)
|
diritti incondizionati di accesso, ispezione e audit da parte dell’entità finanziaria — o di un terzo designato a tal fine — e dell’autorità competente nonché il diritto di ottenere copia della documentazione pertinente in loco, se di importanza critica per le operazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, il cui effettivo esercizio non sia impedito o limitato da altri accordi contrattuali o politiche di attuazione;
|
|
ii)
|
il diritto di concordare livelli di garanzia alternativi, qualora siano interessati i diritti di altri clienti;
|
|
iii)
|
l’obbligo per il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC di cooperare senza riserve nel corso delle ispezioni e degli audit in loco svolti dalle autorità competenti, dall’autorità di sorveglianza capofila, dall’entità finanziaria o da un terzo designato; e
|
|
iv)
|
l’obbligo di fornire dettagli sull’ambito di applicazione, sulle procedure da seguire e sulla frequenza di tali ispezioni e audit;
|
|
|
f)
|
le strategie di uscita, in particolare la definizione di un adeguato periodo di transizione obbligatorio:
|
i)
|
durante il quale il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC continuerà a prestare i suoi servizi TIC o a esercitare le sue funzioni allo scopo di ridurre il rischio di perturbazioni presso l’entità finanziaria o di garantire la sua efficace risoluzione e ristrutturazione;
|
|
ii)
|
che permetta all’entità finanziaria di migrare verso un altro fornitore terzo di servizi TIC oppure di adottare soluzioni interne coerenti con la complessità del servizio prestato.
|
|
In deroga alla lettera e), il fornitore terzo di servizi TIC e l’entità finanziaria che è una microimpresa possono convenire che i diritti di accesso, ispezione e audit dell’entità finanziaria possano essere delegati a un terzo indipendente, nominato dal fornitore terzo di servizi TIC, e che l’entità finanziaria possa richiedere in qualsiasi momento al terzo informazioni e garanzie sulle prestazioni del fornitore terzo di servizi TIC.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 4
4. All’atto della negoziazione degli accordi contrattuali, le entità finanziarie e i fornitori terzi di servizi TIC prendono in considerazione il ricorso a clausole contrattuali standard elaborate dalle autorità pubbliche per servizi specifici.
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 21 Misure di gestione dei rischi di cibersicurezza
-
|
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
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 07 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
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
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
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
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
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 |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-05 Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations – Assessment Procedure |
- 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.
|