+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. Apžvalga

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 Nuorodos

1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai

1.3 Susiję teisės aktai

2. Nustatyti reikalavimai

Reikalavimai

3. Susiję teisės aktai

Teisės aktai
EULAW 17 straipsnis Kokybės valdymo sistema
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Bendrieji principai
-
EULAW 21 straipsnis Kibernetinio saugumo rizikos valdymo priemonės
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Bendrieji principai
-
EULAW 21 straipsnis Kibernetinio saugumo rizikos valdymo priemonės
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis 1

1.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai valdo trečiosios šalies keliamą IRT riziką kaip neatsiejamą IRT rizikos komponentą pagal savo IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, kaip nurodyta 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje, laikydamiesi šių principų:

a)

finansų sektoriaus subjektai, kurie yra sudarę sutartimi įformintus susitarimus dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo savo veiklos operacijoms vykdyti, visada išlieka visiškai atsakingi už visų šiame reglamente ir taikytinoje finansinių paslaugų teisėje nustatytų pareigų laikymąsi ir vykdymą;

b)

finansų sektoriaus subjektai, valdydami trečiosios šalies keliamą IRT riziką, vadovaujasi proporcingumo principu, atsižvelgdami į:

i)

su IRT susijusios priklausomybės pobūdį, mastą, sudėtingumą ir svarbą,

ii)

riziką, kylančią dėl sutartimi įformintų susitarimų dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo, sudarytų su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis, atsižvelgiant į atitinkamos paslaugos, proceso ar funkcijos ypatingą svarbą arba svarbumą, taip pat į galimą poveikį finansinių paslaugų ir veiklos tęstinumui ir prieinamumui individualiu ir grupės lygmenimis.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 2

2.   Taikydami IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, išskyrus subjektus, nurodytus 16 straipsnio 1 dalies pirmoje pastraipoje, ir išskyrus labai mažas įmones, priima ir reguliariai peržiūri trečiosios šalies keliamos IRT rizikos strategiją, atsižvelgdami į 6 straipsnio 9 dalyje nurodytą kelių pardavėjų strategiją, jei taikytina. Trečiosios šalies keliamos IRT rizikos strategija apima IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių teikiamų IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo politiką ir yra taikoma individualiu ir, kai aktualu, iš dalies konsoliduotu ir konsoliduotu pagrindu. Valdymo organas, remdamasis finansų sektoriaus subjekto bendro rizikos profilio ir verslo paslaugų masto ir sudėtingumo vertinimu, reguliariai peržiūri nustatytą riziką, susijusią su sutartimi įformintais susitarimais dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 3

3.   Taikydami IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai tvarko ir atnaujina subjektų lygmeniu ir iš dalies konsoliduotu bei konsoliduotu lygmenimis informacijos apie visus sutartimi įformintus susitarimus dėl IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių teikiamų IRT paslaugų naudojimo registrą.

Pirmoje pastraipoje nurodyti sutartimi įforminti susitarimai tinkamai pagrindžiami dokumentais, atskiriant tuos, kurie taikomi IRT paslaugoms, susijusioms su ypatingos svarbos arba svarbioms funkcijomis, ir susitarimus, kurie joms netaikomi.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai ne rečiau kaip kartą per metus kompetentingoms institucijoms praneša naujų susitarimų dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo skaičių, taip pat apie IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių kategorijas, sutartimi įformintų susitarimų rūšį ir teikiamas paslaugas bei funkcijas.

Kompetentingai institucijai paprašius, finansų sektoriaus subjektai pateikia jai visą informacijos registrą arba prašyme nurodytas jo dalis kartu su visa informacija, laikoma būtina veiksmingai finansų sektoriaus subjekto priežiūrai užtikrinti.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai laiku informuoja kompetentingą instituciją apie bet kokį planuojamą sudaryti sutartimi įformintą susitarimą dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, ir apie tai, kada funkcija tampa ypatingos svarbos ar svarbi.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 4

4.   Prieš sudarydami sutartimi įformintą susitarimą dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo, finansų sektoriaus subjektai:

a)

įvertina, ar sutartimi įformintas susitarimas taikomas IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimui;

b)

įvertina, ar įvykdytos sutarčių sudarymo priežiūros sąlygos;

c)

nustato ir įvertina visą atitinkamą riziką, susijusią su sutartimi įformintais susitarimais, įskaitant galimybę, kad tokiais sutartimi įformintais susitarimais gali būti prisidedama prie IRT koncentracijos rizikos, kaip nurodyta 29 straipsnyje, padidinimo;

d)

atlieka numatomų IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių išsamų patikrinimą ir, taikydami atrankos ir vertinimo procesus, užtikrina, kad IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis būtų tinkama;

e)

nustato ir įvertina interesų konfliktus, galinčius atsirasti dėl sutartimi įforminto susitarimo.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 5

5.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai gali sudaryti sutartimi įformintus susitarimus tik su tomis IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis, kurios laikosi tinkamų informacijos saugumo standartų. Kai tie sutartimi įforminti susitarimai yra susiję su ypatingos svarbos arba svarbiomis funkcijomis, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, prieš sudarydami susitarimus, deramai atsižvelgia į tai, ar IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalys taiko naujausius ir aukščiausios kokybės informacijos saugumo standartus.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 6

6.   Naudodamiesi prieigos, patikrinimo ir audito teisėmis IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies atžvilgiu, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, laikydamiesi rizika grindžiamo požiūrio, iš anksto nustato auditų ir patikrinimų dažnumą bei audituotinas sritis pagal visuotinai pripažintus audito standartus, atitinkančius priežiūros institucijų nurodymus dėl tokių audito standartų naudojimo ir integravimo.

Jei sutartimi įforminti susitarimai, sudaryti su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo, reiškia didelį techninį sudėtingumą, finansų sektoriaus subjektas patikrina, ar auditoriai (ar tai būtų vidaus ar išorės auditoriai, ar auditorių grupė) turi tinkamų įgūdžių ir žinių, kad galėtų veiksmingai atlikti atitinkamą auditą ir vertinimą.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 7

7.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai užtikrina, kad sutartimi įforminti susitarimai dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo galėtų būti nutraukti esant bet kuriai iš toliau nurodytų aplinkybių:

a)

jei IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis reikšmingai pažeidė taikytinus įstatymus, kitus teisės aktus ar sutarties sąlygas;

b)

aplinkybėmis, nustatytomis stebint trečiosios šalies keliamą IRT riziką, kurios laikomos galinčiomis pakeisti pagal sutartimi įformintą susitarimą teikiamų funkcijų atlikimą, įskaitant esminius pakeitimus, kurie daro poveikį susitarimui ar IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies padėčiai;

c)

jei įrodoma, kad IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies veikla turi trūkumų, susijusių su jos atliekamu bendros IRT rizikos valdymu, visų pirma su tuo, kaip ji užtikrina duomenų prieinamumą, autentiškumą, vientisumą ir konfidencialumą, ar tai būtų asmens duomenys ar kiti neskelbtini duomenys, ar ne asmens duomenys;

d)

atvejais, kai kompetentinga institucija nebegali veiksmingai prižiūrėti finansų sektoriaus subjekto dėl atitinkamo sutartimi įforminto susitarimo sąlygų ar su juo susijusių aplinkybių.
EULAW 28 straipsnis 8

8.   IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, atveju finansų sektoriaus subjektai nustato pasitraukimo strategijas. Pasitraukimo strategijomis atsižvelgiama į riziką, kuri gali kilti IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies lygmeniu, visų pirma į galimą jos žlugimą, teikiamų IRT paslaugų kokybės pablogėjimą, bet kokį verslo sutrikdymą dėl netinkamo paslaugų teikimo ar jų neteikimo arba bet kokios reikšmingos rizikos, kylančios tinkamo ir nuolatinio atitinkamos IRT paslaugos diegimo atžvilgiu, arba nutraukus sutartimi įformintą susitarimą su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis susiklosčius bet kuriai iš 7 dalyje išvardytų aplinkybių.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai užtikrina, kad jie galėtų pasitraukti iš sutartimi įformintų susitarimų:

a)

nesutrikdydami savo verslo veiklos,

b)

nesuvaržydami teisės aktų reikalavimų laikymosi,

c)

nepakenkdami klientams teikiamų paslaugų tęstinumui ir kokybei.

Pasitraukimo planai turi būti išsamūs, pagrįsti dokumentais ir, remiantis 4 straipsnio 2 dalyje išdėstytais kriterijais, pakankamai išbandyti bei periodiškai peržiūrimi.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai nustato alternatyvius sprendimus ir parengia pertvarkos planus, kad galėtų perimti pagal sutartis patikėtas IRT paslaugas ir atitinkamus duomenis iš IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies ir saugiai bei visa apimtimi juos perduoti alternatyviems paslaugų teikėjams arba juos vėl įtraukti į savo vidaus sistemas.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai turi būti įdiegę tinkamas nenumatytų atvejų priemones, kad užtikrintų veiklos tęstinumą susiklosčius pirmoje pastraipoje nurodytomis aplinkybėmis.

Susietos užduotys

Saitai
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 Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "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.