+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. Apžvalga

Pavadinimas Standartas
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 Nuorodos

1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai

1.3 Susiję teisės aktai

2. Nustatyti reikalavimai

Reikalavimai
Šaltinis Reikalavimas

3. Susiję teisės aktai

Teisės aktai
Šaltinis Reguliavimas
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 29 straipsnis 2

2.   Jei sutartimi įformintame susitarime dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo yra numatyta galimybė IRT paslaugas teikiančiai trečiajai šaliai papildomai sudaryti subrangos sutartis dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, su kitomis IRT paslaugas teikiančiomis trečiosiomis šalimis, finansų sektoriaus subjektai įvertina naudą ir riziką, galinčias atsirasti dėl tokių subrangos sutarčių, visų pirma tuo atveju, kai IRT subrangovas yra įsisteigęs trečiojoje valstybėje.

Kai sutartimi įforminti susitarimai susiję su IRT paslaugomis, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, finansų sektoriaus subjektai deramai apsvarsto nemokumo teisės nuostatas, kurios būtų taikomos IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies bankroto atveju, taip pat visus apribojimus, kurių galėtų atsirasti skubaus finansų sektoriaus subjekto duomenų atkūrimo atžvilgiu.

Jei sutartimi įforminti susitarimai dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo sudaromi su IRT paslaugas teikiančia trečiąja šalimi, įsisteigusia trečiojoje valstybėje, finansų sektoriaus subjektai, be antroje pastraipoje nurodytų aspektų, taip pat atsižvelgia į tai, ar laikomasi Sąjungos duomenų apsaugos taisyklių ir ar veiksmingai užtikrinamas teisės aktų vykdymas toje trečiojoje valstybėje.

Jei sutartimi įforminti susitarimai dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo numato galimybę sudaryti subrangos susitarimus, finansų sektoriaus subjektai įvertina, ar ir kaip galimai ilgos ar sudėtingos subrangos grandinės gali daryti poveikį jų galimybėms visapusiškai stebėti pagal sutartį perduotas funkcijas ir kompetentingos institucijos galimybėms šiuo atžvilgiu veiksmingai prižiūrėti finansų sektoriaus subjektą.

EULAW 30 straipsnis 1

1.   Finansų sektoriaus subjekto ir IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies teisės ir pareigos aiškiai paskirstomos ir išdėstomos raštu. Visa sutartis turi apimti paslaugų lygio susitarimus ir yra išdėstoma viename rašytiniame dokumente, kuris šalims yra prieinamas popierine forma, arba dokumente, kurį galima gauti kita atsisiunčiama, patvaria ir prieinama forma.

EULAW 30 straipsnis 2

2.   Sutartimi įformintuose susitarimuose dėl IRT paslaugų naudojimo turi būti nurodyti bent šie elementai:

a)

aiškus ir išsamus visų funkcijų ir IRT paslaugų, kurias turi teikti IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis, aprašymas, nurodant, ar leidžiama sudaryti subrangos sutartis IRT paslaugoms, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, ar jos esminių dalių ir, jeigu taip, tokiai subrangos sutarčiai taikomos sąlygos;

b)

vietos, t. y. regionai ar šalys, kuriuose turi būti teikiamos pagal sutartį arba subrangos sutartį atliekamos funkcijos ir IRT paslaugos ir kuriuose turi būti tvarkomi duomenys, nurodant saugojimo vietą, ir reikalavimas, kad IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis iš anksto praneštų finansų sektoriaus subjektui, jeigu ji ketina keisti tokias vietas;

c)

nuostatos dėl duomenų prieinamumo, autentiškumo, vientisumo ir konfidencialumo, kiek tai susiję su duomenų, įskaitant asmens duomenis, apsauga;

d)

nuostatos dėl prieigos prie asmens ir ne asmens duomenų, kuriuos tvarko finansų sektoriaus subjektas, jų atkūrimo ir grąžinimo lengvai prieinama forma užtikrinimo IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies nemokumo, pertvarkymo ar veiklos operacijų nutraukimo atveju arba sutartimi įforminto susitarimo nutraukimo atveju;

e)

paslaugų lygio aprašymai, įskaitant jų atnaujinimus ir pataisymus;

f)

IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies pareiga teikti pagalbą finansų sektoriaus subjektui be papildomo mokesčio arba už iš anksto nustatytą mokestį, kai įvyksta IRT incidentas, susijęs su finansų sektoriaus subjektui teikiama IRT paslauga;

g)

IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies pareiga visapusiškai bendradarbiauti su kompetentingomis institucijomis ir finansų sektoriaus subjekto pertvarkymo institucijomis, įskaitant su jų paskirtais asmenimis;

h)

sutarties nutraukimo teisės ir susiję minimalūs įspėjimo apie sutartimi įformintų susitarimų nutraukimą terminai, atsižvelgiant į kompetentingų institucijų ir pertvarkymo institucijų lūkesčius;

i)

IRT paslaugas teikiančių trečiųjų šalių dalyvavimo finansų sektoriaus subjektų informuotumo apie IRT saugumą programose ir skaitmeninės veiklos atsparumo mokymuose pagal 13 straipsnio 6 dalį sąlygos.

EULAW 30 straipsnis 3

3.   Į sutartimi įformintus susitarimus dėl IRT paslaugų, kuriomis palaikomos ypatingos svarbos arba svarbios funkcijos, naudojimo, be 2 dalyje nurodytų elementų, įtraukiami bent šie elementai:

a)

išsamūs paslaugų lygio aprašymai, įskaitant jų atnaujinimus ir pataisymus, ir tikslūs kiekybiniai ir kokybiniai sutarto paslaugų lygio tiksliniai veiklos rezultatų rodikliai, kad finansų sektoriaus subjektas galėtų vykdyti veiksmingą IRT paslaugų stebėseną ir nepagrįstai nedelsdamas imtis tinkamų taisomųjų veiksmų, kai sutarti paslaugų lygiai neužtikrinami;

b)

IRT paslaugas teikiančiai trečiajai šaliai taikomi įspėjimo terminai ir pareigos teikti pranešimus finansų sektoriaus subjektui, įskaitant pranešimą apie bet kokius pokyčius, kurie gali daryti reikšmingą poveikį IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies galimybėms veiksmingai teikti IRT paslaugas, kurios palaiko ypatingos svarbos arba svarbias funkcijas pagal sutartus paslaugų lygius;

c)

reikalavimai IRT paslaugas teikiančiai trečiajai šaliai įgyvendinti ir testuoti nenumatytų veiklos atvejų planus ir taikyti IRT saugumo priemones ir politiką, kuriomis užtikrinamas tinkamas finansų sektoriaus subjekto teikiamų paslaugų saugumo lygis laikantis jo taikomos reguliavimo sistemos;

d)

IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies pareiga dalyvauti ir visapusiškai bendradarbiauti finansų sektoriaus subjekto TLPT, kaip nurodyta 26 ir 27 straipsniuose;

e)

teisė nuolat stebėti IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies veiklos rezultatus; ši teisė apima:

i)

finansų sektoriaus subjekto arba paskirtos trečiosios šalies ir kompetentingos institucijos neribotas teises turėti prieigą, atlikti patikrinimą bei auditą ir teisę daryti atitinkamų dokumentų kopijas vietoje, jeigu jie turi ypatingos svarbos IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies operacijoms; veiksmingai naudotis šiomis teisėmis netrukdo ir jų nevaržo kiti sutartimi įforminti susitarimai arba įgyvendinimo politika;

ii)

teisę susitarti dėl alternatyvių saugumo užtikrinimo lygių, jei tai turi įtakos kitų klientų teisėms;

iii)

IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies pareigą visapusiškai bendradarbiauti kompetentingoms institucijoms, atsakingajai priežiūros institucijai, finansų sektoriaus subjektui arba paskirtai trečiajai šaliai atliekant patikrinimus ir auditus ir

iv)

pareigą pateikti išsamią informaciją apie tokių patikrinimų ir auditų apimtį, procedūras, kurių turi būti laikomasi jų metu, ir jų dažnumą;

f)

pasitraukimo strategijos, visų pirma privalomo pakankamos trukmės pereinamojo laikotarpio nustatymas:

i)

per kurį IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis toliau vykdys atitinkamas funkcijas ar teiks IRT paslaugas, kad būtų sumažinta finansų sektoriaus subjekto veiklos sutrikdymo rizika arba užtikrintas veiksmingas jo pertvarkymas ir restruktūrizavimas;

ii)

per kurį finansų sektoriaus subjektas gali pereiti prie kitos IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies arba pasirinkti viduje taikomus sprendimus, atitinkančius teikiamos paslaugos sudėtingumą.

Nukrypstant nuo e punkto, IRT paslaugas teikianti trečioji šalis ir finansų sektoriaus subjektas, kuris yra labai maža įmonė, gali susitarti, kad prieigos, patikrinimo ir audito teisės gali būti perduotos IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies paskirtai nepriklausomai trečiajai šaliai ir kad finansų sektoriaus subjektas bet kuriuo metu gali prašyti tos trečiosios šalies pateikti informaciją ir patikinimą apie IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalies veiklos rezultatus.

EULAW 30 straipsnis 4

4.   Derėdamiesi dėl sutartimi įformintų susitarimų, finansų sektoriaus subjektai ir IRT paslaugas teikiančios trečiosios šalys apsvarsto galimybę taikyti standartines sutarčių sąlygas, valdžios institucijų parengtas konkrečioms paslaugoms.

EULAW 21 straipsnis Kibernetinio saugumo rizikos valdymo priemonės
-

Susietos užduotys

Saitai
Saito tipas Užduotis
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 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.