+Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities
---+Stakeholder Accountability Structure
---+Authoritative Chain of Command

Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities

Description

Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP))
∙ Designated internal security point of contact
∙ vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP))
∙ Part-time or shared security manager
∙ vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO
∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role
∙ Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget
∙ Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.)
∙ Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access
∙ Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads)
∙ Security Center of Excellence (CoE)
∙ Defined succession planning for key security roles

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.
▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)).
▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)).

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. Apžvalga

Stakeholder Accountability Structure

Description

Mechanisms exist to enforce an accountability structure so that appropriate teams and individuals are empowered, responsible and trained for identifying, mapping, measuring and managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Documented roles and responsibilities (RACI matrix or equivalent)
∙ Job descriptions with security duties clearly defined

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Documented RACI matrix for cybersecurity responsibilities
∙ Formal security role assignments in job descriptions
∙ Access control aligned to defined roles

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Documented RACI matrix for cybersecurity responsibilities
∙ Role-based accountability framework
∙ Performance metrics tied to security responsibilities

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal accountability framework (RACI/RASCI) maintained in GRC platform
∙ Security role definitions with measurable performance criteria
∙ Control ownership assigned and tracked in GRC platform

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise accountability framework integrated with GRC and HR systems
∙ Control ownership model with documented accountability for each control domain
∙ Security KPIs tied to role-based performance management
∙ Third-party accountability structures for key vendors

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

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce an accountability structure so that appropriate teams and individuals are empowered, responsible and trained for mapping, measuring and managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks.

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.
Authoritative Chain of Command

Description

Mechanisms exist to establish an authoritative chain of command with clear lines of communication to remove ambiguity for individuals and teams managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Organization chart with security escalation paths
∙ Documented incident escalation contact list

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Organization chart with defined security escalation paths
∙ Documented escalation procedures for security decisions
∙ Clear IT/security reporting relationships

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Organization chart with cybersecurity reporting lines
∙ Formal escalation matrix for security decisions and incidents
∙ Defined authority levels for security-related approvals

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal organizational structure with clear cybersecurity authority chain
∙ Documented delegation of authority for security decisions
∙ Defined escalation procedures published in the SCRP

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise organizational structure with defined CISO authority and reporting chain
∙ Board-level visibility into security command structure
∙ Integrated HR/org management system reflecting security authority
∙ Formalized delegation of authority matrix for security decisions

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy governance practices are informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish an authoritative chain of command with clear lines of communication to remove ambiguity from individuals and teams related to managing Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)-related risks.

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 13 straipsnis 4

4.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai stebi savo skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo strategijos, nurodytos 6 straipsnio 8 dalyje, įgyvendinimo veiksmingumą. Jie pažymi chronologinius IRT rizikos pokyčius, analizuoja su IRT susijusių incidentų, visų pirma kibernetinių išpuolių ir jų modelių, dažnumą, rūšis, mastą ir pokyčius, kad suprastų gresiančios IRT rizikos mastą, visų pirma kiek tai susiję su ypatingos svarbos arba svarbiomis funkcijomis, ir sustiprintų finansų sektoriaus subjekto kibernetinę brandą ir parengtį.
EULAW 21 straipsnis Kibernetinio saugumo rizikos valdymo priemonės
-
EULAW 17 straipsnis Kokybės valdymo sistema
-
EULAW 2 straipsnis Bendrieji IRT saugumo politikos, procedūrų, protokolų ir priemonių elementai
-
EULAW 2 straipsnis Bendrieji IRT saugumo politikos, procedūrų, protokolų ir priemonių elementai
-
EULAW 19 straipsnis Žmogiškųjų išteklių politika

19 straipsnis

Žmogiškųjų išteklių politika

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai į savo žmogiškųjų išteklių politiką ar kitas atitinkamas politikas įtraukia visus šiuos su IRT saugumu susijusius elementus:

a) 

visų specifinių su IRT saugumu susijusių pareigų nustatymą ir priskyrimą;

b) 

finansų sektoriaus subjekto ir IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių darbuotojams, naudojantiems finansų sektoriaus subjekto IRT turtą ar turintiems prie jo prieigą, taikomus reikalavimus:

i) 

susipažinti su finansų sektoriaus subjekto IRT saugumo politika, procedūromis ir protokolais ir jų laikytis;

ii) 

žinoti finansų sektoriaus subjekto įdiegtus pranešimų teikimo kanalus, padedančius aptikti neįprastą elgesį, be kita ko, atitinkamais atvejais pranešimų teikimo kanalus, nustatytus pagal Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą (ES) 2019/1937 ( 1 );

iii) 

nutraukus darbo santykius su finansų sektoriaus subjektu grąžinti finansų sektoriaus subjektui visą jam priklausantį turėtą IRT turtą ir materialųjį informacinį turtą.
EULAW 28 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 5 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 5 straipsnis 2

2.   Finansų sektoriaus subjekto valdymo organas nustato, tvirtina, prižiūri visų priemonių, susijusių su 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodyta IRT rizikos valdymo sistema, įgyvendinimą ir už jį atsako.

Taikant pirmą pastraipą, valdymo organas:

a)

prisiima galutinę atsakomybę už finansų sektoriaus subjekto IRT rizikos valdymą;

b)

nustato politiką, kuria siekiama užtikrinti, kad būtų išlaikyti aukšti duomenų prieinamumo, autentiškumo, vientisumo ir konfidencialumo standartai;

c)

nustato aiškius visų su IRT susijusių funkcijų vaidmenis ir atsakomybę ir nustato tinkamas valdymo priemones, kad būtų užtikrintas veiksmingas ir laiku vykdomas tų funkcijų tarpusavio komunikavimas, bendradarbiavimas ir koordinavimas;

d)

prisiima bendrą atsakomybę už tai, kad būtų nustatyta ir patvirtinta 6 straipsnio 8 dalyje nurodyta skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo strategija, įskaitant atitinkamo finansų sektoriaus subjektui priimtino IRT rizikos lygmens nustatymą, kaip nurodyta 6 straipsnio 8 dalies b punkte;

e)

tvirtina, prižiūri ir periodiškai peržiūri finansų sektoriaus subjekto IRT veiklos tęstinumo politiką ir IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planus, kurie atitinkamai nurodyti 11 straipsnio 1 ir 3 dalyse, įgyvendinimą; ši politika ir planai gali būti priimti kaip speciali specifinė politika, sudaranti neatsiejamą finansų sektoriaus subjekto bendros veiklos tęstinumo politikos ir reagavimo bei veiklos atkūrimo plano dalį;

f)

tvirtina ir periodiškai peržiūri finansų sektoriaus subjekto IRT vidaus audito planus, IRT auditus ir jų esminius pakeitimus;

g)

paskirsto ir periodiškai peržiūri atitinkamą biudžetą, kad būtų tenkinami finansų sektoriaus subjekto skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo poreikiai, susiję su visų rūšių ištekliais, įskaitant atitinkamas informuotumo apie IRT saugumą programas ir skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo mokymą, nurodytus 13 straipsnio 6 dalyje, taip pat visų darbuotojų IRT įgūdžius;

h)

tvirtina ir periodiškai peržiūri finansų sektoriaus subjekto politiką dėl susitarimų, susijusių su IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių teikiamų IRT paslaugų naudojimu;

i)

įdiegia įmonės lygmeniu pranešimų teikimo kanalus, kad galėtų būti tinkamai informuojamas apie:

i)

susitarimus, sudarytus su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo,

ii)

visus atitinkamus planuojamus esminius pokyčius, susijusius su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis,

iii)

galimą tokių pokyčių poveikį ypatingos svarbos arba svarbioms funkcijoms, dėl kurių sudaryti tokie susitarimai, įskaitant rizikos analizės santrauką, kad būtų galima įvertinti tų pokyčių poveikį, taip pat bent apie didelius su IRT susijusius incidentus bei jų poveikį ir apie reagavimo, veiklos atkūrimo ir taisomąsias priemones.
EULAW 5 straipsnis 3

3.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai, išskyrus labai mažas įmones, sukuria pareigybę, skirtą susitarimų, sudarytų su IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo, stebėsenai, arba paskiria vyresniosios vadovybės narį, atsakingą už gresiančios susijusios rizikos ir atitinkamų dokumentų priežiūrą.

Susietos užduotys

Saitai
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 06
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
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 = 10
is related to People
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
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 Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-02.03B
blocks BCM-01.03B
blocks BCM-03.01B
is blocked by GOV-05 Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities – Assessment Procedure
blocks PL-09 Central Management
blocks PM-02 Information Security Program Leadership Role
blocks PM-06 Measures of Performance
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks PL-09 [P] Central Management
blocks PM-06 [P] Measures of Performance
blocks GV.RM Risk Management Strategy
blocks GV.RM-05 Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from suppliers and other third parties
blocks GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
blocks GV.RR-02 Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced
blocks PO.2.3 Obtain upper management or authorizing official commitment to secure development, and convey that commitment to all with development-related roles …
  • 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.