+Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
---+Defined Operational Resilience Requirements

Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)

Description

Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during:
(1) Routine operations; and
(2) Adverse conditions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Criticality assessments

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Criticality assessments

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Criticality assessments

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Criticality assessments

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

∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Criticality assessments

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD.
▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure.
▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable.

Level 3 Well Defined

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks).

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.
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1. Apžvalga

Defined Operational Resilience Requirements

Description

Mechanisms exist to define operational resilience requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to operate in a controlled and acceptable manner during:
(1) Routine operations; and
(2) Adverse conditions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Documented RTO/RPO for critical systems

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

∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Documented RTO/RPO/MTD for critical systems
∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)

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

∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ Documented resilience requirements per system in the CMDB

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

∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, Castellan)
∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture and backup design

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

∙ Enterprise operational resilience program (e.g., aligned with ISO 22301 and DORA)
∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, ServiceNow BCM)
∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture, backup and failover design
∙ Annual requirements recertification

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
▪ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and/or Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) are not formally planned for or resourced to meet.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).

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 8 straipsnis 4

4.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai įvardija visą informacinį turtą ir IRT turtą, įskaitant esantį nutolusiose vietose, tinklo išteklius ir aparatinę įrangą ir pažymi tuos, kurie laikomi esančiais ypatingos svarbos. Jie pažymi informacinio turto ir IRT turto konfigūraciją ir skirtingo informacinio turto ir IRT turto sąsajas ir tarpusavio priklausomybę.
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 24 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo politikos komponentai
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 28 straipsnis Valdymas ir organizavimas
-
EULAW 39 straipsnis IRT veiklos tęstinumo plano komponentai
-
EULAW 11 straipsnis Reagavimas ir veiklos atkūrimas
-
EULAW 12 straipsnis Atsarginių kopijų politika ir procedūros, atstatymo ir atkūrimo procedūros ir metodai
-
EULAW 32 straipsnis Duomenų tvarkymo saugumas
-
EULAW 21 straipsnis Kibernetinio saugumo rizikos valdymo priemonės
-
EULAW 11 straipsnis 1

1.   Pagal 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodytą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, remdamiesi 8 straipsnyje nurodytais nustatymo reikalavimais, finansų sektoriaus subjektai įdiegia išsamią IRT veiklos tęstinumo politiką, kuri gali būti priimta kaip speciali specifinė politika, sudaranti neatsiejamą finansų sektoriaus subjekto bendros veiklos tęstinumo politikos dalį.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 2

2.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai įgyvendina IRT veiklos tęstinumo politiką taikydami specialius, tinkamus ir dokumentais pagrįstus susitarimus, planus, procedūras ir mechanizmus, kuriais siekiama:

a)

užtikrinti finansų sektoriaus subjekto ypatingos svarbos arba svarbių funkcijų tęstinumą;

b)

greitai, tinkamai ir veiksmingai reaguoti į visus su IRT susijusius incidentus ir juos spręsti taip, kad būtų padaryta kuo mažesnė žala, o pirmenybė būtų teikiama veiklos atnaujinimo ir atkūrimo veiksmams;

c)

nedelsiant pradėti įgyvendinti specialius planus, kuriais sudaromos sąlygos taikyti izoliavimo priemones, procesus ir technologijas, kurie yra pritaikyti atsižvelgiant į kiekvieną su IRT susijusių incidentų rūšį, ir užkirsti kelią tolesnei žalai, taip pat pagal 12 straipsnį nustatytas pritaikytas reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo procedūras;

d)

įvertinti preliminarų poveikį, žalą ir nuostolius;

e)

nustatyti komunikacijos ir krizių valdymo veiksmus, kuriais užtikrinama, kad atnaujinta informacija būtų perduodama visiems atitinkamiems vidaus darbuotojams ir išorės suinteresuotiesiems subjektams pagal 14 straipsnį, ir teikti pranešimus kompetentingoms institucijoms pagal 19 straipsnį.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 3

3.   Pagal 6 straipsnio 1 dalyje nurodytą IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą finansų sektoriaus subjektai įgyvendina susijusius IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planus, kuriems finansų sektoriaus subjektų, išskyrus labai mažas įmones, atveju taikomos nepriklausomo vidaus audito peržiūros.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 4

4.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai nustato, taiko ir periodiškai testuoja atitinkamus IRT veiklos tęstinumo planus, visų pirma susijusius su ypatingos svarbos arba svarbiomis funkcijomis, kurių vykdymas perduotas arba pagal susitarimus patikėtas vykdyti IRT paslaugas teikiančioms trečiosioms šalims.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 5

5.   Pagal bendrą veiklos tęstinumo politiką finansų sektoriaus subjektai atlieka didelių verslo sutrikdymų rizikos poveikio verslui analizę. Vykdydami poveikio verslui analizę finansų sektoriaus subjektai įvertina galimą didelių verslo sutrikdymų poveikį taikydami kiekybinius ir kokybinius kriterijus, atitinkamai naudodami vidaus ir išorės duomenis ir scenarijų analizę. Poveikio verslui analizėje atsižvelgiama į nustatytų ir pažymėtų veiklos funkcijų ypatingą svarbą, palaikymo procesus, priklausomybę nuo trečiųjų šalių ir informacinį turtą ir jų tarpusavio priklausomybę. Finansų sektoriaus subjektai užtikrina, kad IRT turtas ir IRT paslaugos būtų kuriamos ir naudojamos visapusiškai atsižvelgiant į poveikio verslui analizę, visų pirma siekiant tinkamai užtikrinti visų ypatingos svarbos komponentų atsarginius pajėgumus.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 6

6.   Vykdydami visapusišką IRT rizikos valdymą, finansų sektoriaus subjektai:

a)

testuoja IRT veiklos tęstinumo planus ir IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planus, susijusius su visas funkcijas palaikančiomis IRT sistemomis, bent kartą per metus, taip pat padarius bet kokius esminius pakeitimus ypatingos svarbos arba svarbias funkcijas palaikančiose IRT sistemose;

b)

testuoja pagal 14 straipsnį parengtus krizės komunikacijos planus.

Pirmos pastraipos a punkto tikslais finansų sektoriaus subjektai, išskyrus labai mažas įmones, į testavimo planus įtraukia kibernetinių išpuolių ir pirminės IRT infrastruktūros pakeitimo atsarginiais pajėgumais, atsarginėmis kopijomis ir atsarginiais įrenginiais, būtinais 12 straipsnyje nustatytoms pareigoms įvykdyti, scenarijus.

Finansų sektoriaus subjektai reguliariai peržiūri savo IRT veiklos tęstinumo politiką ir IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planus, atsižvelgdami į pagal pirmą pastraipą atliktų testų rezultatus ir rekomendacijas, pateiktas atlikus audito patikras arba priežiūrinį tikrinimą.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 7

7.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai, išskyrus labai mažas įmones, įdiegia krizių valdymo funkciją, kuri, pradėjus įgyvendinti IRT veiklos tęstinumo planus arba IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planus, nustato, inter alia, aiškias vidaus ir išorės pranešimų krizės atveju valdymo procedūras pagal 14 straipsnį.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 8

8.   Kai pradedami įgyvendinti IRT veiklos tęstinumo planai arba IRT reagavimo ir veiklos atkūrimo planai, finansų sektoriaus subjektai saugo įrašus apie veiklą iki sutrikdymo įvykių ir jų metu ir šie įrašai turi būti prieinami bet kuriuo metu.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 9

9.   Centriniai vertybinių popierių depozitoriumai pateikia kompetentingoms institucijoms IRT veiklos tęstinumo testų ar panašių tikrinimų rezultatų kopijas.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 10

10.   Finansų sektoriaus subjektai, išskyrus labai mažas įmones, kompetentingoms institucijoms jų prašymu praneša apie preliminariai apskaičiuotas bendras metines išlaidas ir nuostolius, patirtus dėl didelių su IRT susijusių incidentų.
EULAW 11 straipsnis 11

11.   Vadovaujantis reglamentų (ES) Nr. 1093/2010, (ES) Nr. 1094/2010 ir (ES) Nr. 1095/2010 16 straipsniu, EPI Jungtiniame komitete ne vėliau kaip 2024 m. liepos 17 d. parengia bendras 10 dalyje nurodytų preliminaraus bendrų metinių išlaidų ir nuostolių apskaičiavimo gaires.
EULAW 12 straipsnis 1

1.   Siekdami užtikrinti, kad IRT sistemos ir duomenys būtų atstatyti kuo greičiau, kuo mažiau sutrikdant ir patiriant kuo mažiau nuostolių, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, įgyvendindami savo IRT rizikos valdymo sistemą, parengia ir dokumentais pagrindžia:

a)

atsarginių kopijų politiką ir procedūras, kuriose nurodoma duomenų, kurių atsarginės kopijos daromos, apimtis ir minimalus atsarginių kopijų darymo dažnumas, remiantis ypatinga informacijos svarba arba duomenų konfidencialumo lygiu;

b)

atstatymo ir atkūrimo procedūras ir metodus.

Susietos užduotys

Saitai
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Recover
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
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 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 Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Data Destruction
blocks Data Encrypted for Impact
blocks Inhibit System Recovery
blocks Defacement
blocks Internal Defacement
blocks External Defacement
blocks Disk Wipe
blocks Disk Content Wipe
blocks Disk Structure Wipe
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
blocks Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks PS-01.04B
blocks PS-02.02B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks SSO-06.02B
blocks BCM-01.01B
blocks BCM-01.02B
blocks BCM-03.01B
is blocked by BCD-02 Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) – Assessment Procedure
blocks CP-01 Policy and Procedures
blocks CP-02 Contingency Plan
blocks CP-10 System Recovery and Reconstitution
blocks IR-04(03) Continuity of Operations
blocks PM-08 Critical Infrastructure Plan
blocks CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures
blocks CP-02 [L] Contingency Plan
blocks CP-10 [L] System Recovery and Reconstitution
blocks CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures
blocks CP-02 [M] Contingency Plan
blocks CP-10 [M] System Recovery and Reconstitution
blocks CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures
blocks CP-02 [H] Contingency Plan
blocks CP-10 [H] System Recovery and Reconstitution
blocks PM-08 [P] Critical Infrastructure Plan
blocks 03.04.04E Automation Support for Baseline Configuration
blocks 03.08.04E System Recovery and Reconstitution
blocks GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities
blocks ID.IM-04 Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved
blocks PR.IR-02 The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats
blocks PR.IR-03 Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
blocks RS.MA-05 The criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied
blocks RC RECOVER
blocks RC.RP Incident Recovery Plan Execution
blocks RC.RP-02 Recovery actions are selected, scoped, prioritized, and performed
blocks RC.RP-04 Critical mission functions and cybersecurity risk management are considered to establish post-incident operational norms
  • 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.