+BDSG § 64 Anforderungen an die Sicherheit der Datenverarbeitung
|
BDSG § 64 Anforderungen an die Sicherheit der Datenverarbeitung
(1) Der Verantwortliche und der Auftragsverarbeiter haben unter Berücksichtigung des Stands der Technik, der Implementierungskosten, der Art, des Umfangs, der Umstände und der Zwecke der Verarbeitung sowie der Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit und der Schwere der mit der Verarbeitung verbundenen Gefahren für die Rechtsgüter der betroffenen Personen die erforderlichen technischen und organisatorischen Maßnahmen zu treffen, um bei der Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten ein dem Risiko angemessenes Schutzniveau zu gewährleisten, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Verarbeitung besonderer Kategorien personenbezogener Daten. Der Verantwortliche hat hierbei die einschlägigen Technischen Richtlinien und Empfehlungen des Bundesamtes für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik zu berücksichtigen. (2) Die in Absatz 1 genannten Maßnahmen können unter anderem die Pseudonymisierung und Verschlüsselung personenbezogener Daten umfassen, soweit solche Mittel in Anbetracht der Verarbeitungszwecke möglich sind. Die Maßnahmen nach Absatz 1 sollen dazu führen, dass - 1.
die Vertraulichkeit, Integrität, Verfügbarkeit und Belastbarkeit der Systeme und Dienste im Zusammenhang mit der Verarbeitung auf Dauer sichergestellt werden und - 2.
die Verfügbarkeit der personenbezogenen Daten und der Zugang zu ihnen bei einem physischen oder technischen Zwischenfall rasch wiederhergestellt werden können.
(3) Im Fall einer automatisierten Verarbeitung haben der Verantwortliche und der Auftragsverarbeiter nach einer Risikobewertung Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, die Folgendes bezwecken: - 1.
Verwehrung des Zugangs zu Verarbeitungsanlagen, mit denen die Verarbeitung durchgeführt wird, für Unbefugte (Zugangskontrolle), - 2.
Verhinderung des unbefugten Lesens, Kopierens, Veränderns oder Löschens von Datenträgern (Datenträgerkontrolle), - 3.
Verhinderung der unbefugten Eingabe von personenbezogenen Daten sowie der unbefugten Kenntnisnahme, Veränderung und Löschung von gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten (Speicherkontrolle), - 4.
Verhinderung der Nutzung automatisierter Verarbeitungssysteme mit Hilfe von Einrichtungen zur Datenübertragung durch Unbefugte (Benutzerkontrolle), - 5.
Gewährleistung, dass die zur Benutzung eines automatisierten Verarbeitungssystems Berechtigten ausschließlich zu den von ihrer Zugangsberechtigung umfassten personenbezogenen Daten Zugang haben (Zugriffskontrolle), - 6.
Gewährleistung, dass überprüft und festgestellt werden kann, an welche Stellen personenbezogene Daten mit Hilfe von Einrichtungen zur Datenübertragung übermittelt oder zur Verfügung gestellt wurden oder werden können (Übertragungskontrolle), - 7.
Gewährleistung, dass nachträglich überprüft und festgestellt werden kann, welche personenbezogenen Daten zu welcher Zeit und von wem in automatisierte Verarbeitungssysteme eingegeben oder verändert worden sind (Eingabekontrolle), - 8.
Gewährleistung, dass bei der Übermittlung personenbezogener Daten sowie beim Transport von Datenträgern die Vertraulichkeit und Integrität der Daten geschützt werden (Transportkontrolle), - 9.
Gewährleistung, dass eingesetzte Systeme im Störungsfall wiederhergestellt werden können (Wiederherstellbarkeit), - 10.
Gewährleistung, dass alle Funktionen des Systems zur Verfügung stehen und auftretende Fehlfunktionen gemeldet werden (Zuverlässigkeit), - 11.
Gewährleistung, dass gespeicherte personenbezogene Daten nicht durch Fehlfunktionen des Systems beschädigt werden können (Datenintegrität), - 12.
Gewährleistung, dass personenbezogene Daten, die im Auftrag verarbeitet werden, nur entsprechend den Weisungen des Auftraggebers verarbeitet werden können (Auftragskontrolle), - 13.
Gewährleistung, dass personenbezogene Daten gegen Zerstörung oder Verlust geschützt sind (Verfügbarkeitskontrolle), - 14.
Gewährleistung, dass zu unterschiedlichen Zwecken erhobene personenbezogene Daten getrennt verarbeitet werden können (Trennbarkeit).
Ein Zweck nach Satz 1 Nummer 2 bis 5 kann insbesondere durch die Verwendung von dem Stand der Technik entsprechenden Verschlüsselungsverfahren erreicht werden.
1. Apžvalga
| Pavadinimas |
Reguliavimas |
,
1.1 Nuorodos
1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai
1.3 Susiję standartai
2. Nustatyti reikalavimai
Reikalavimai
| Šaltinis |
Reikalavimas |
3. Susiję standartai
Standartai
| Šaltinis |
Reikalavimas |
|
SCF
|
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Encrypting Data Outside of Controlled Areas
Description
Cryptographic mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information stored on digital media during transport outside of controlled areas.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Cryptographic governance program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov)
∙ Microsoft BitLocker (https://microsoft.com)
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 cryptographic capability exists to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information stored on digital media during transport outside of controlled areas.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
De-Identification (Anonymization)
Description
Mechanisms exist to de-identify sensitive and/or regulated data through
(1) Anonymization;
(2) De-identification;
(3) Pseudonymization; and/or
(4) Redaction.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Product / project management
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 mask sensitive and/or regulated data through data anonymization, pseudonymization, redaction and/or de-identification.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
|
|
SCF
|
Security of Personal Data (PD)
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
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
Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer 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 PRI 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 Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
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.
|
|