+14. pants Ražotāju ziņošanas pienākumi
---+14. pants 1.
---+14. pants 2.
---+14. pants 3.
---+14. pants 4.
---+14. pants 5.
---+14. pants 6.
---+14. pants 7.
---+14. pants 8.
---+14. pants 9.
---+14. pants 10.

14. pants Ražotāju ziņošanas pienākumi

-

1. Pārskats

,
14. pants 1.
Ražotājs par jebkuru aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību, ko satur produkts ar digitāliem elementiem un par ko tam kļūst zināms, saskaņā ar šā panta 7. punktu paziņo vienlaikus par koordinatoru izraudzītajai CSIRT un ENISA. Ražotājs paziņo par šo aktīvi izmantoto ievainojamību, izmantojot vienoto ziņošanas platformu, kas izveidota, ievērojot 16. pantu.
14. pants 2.

Šā panta 1. punktā minētā paziņojuma nolūkos ražotājs iesniedz:

a) 

agrīno brīdinājumu par aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību bez liekas kavēšanās un jebkurā gadījumā 24 stundu laikā pēc tam, kad ražotājs par to uzzinājis, attiecīgā gadījumā norādot dalībvalstis, kuru teritorijā saskaņā ar ražotāja rīcībā esošo informāciju tā produkts ar digitāliem elementiem ir darīts pieejams;

b) 

ja vien attiecīgā informācija jau nav sniegta, bez liekas kavēšanās un jebkurā gadījumā 72 stundu laikā pēc tam, kad ražotājs ir uzzinājis par aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību, paziņojumu par ievainojamību, kurā sniedz vispārēju informāciju, cik lielā mērā tāda ir pieejama, par attiecīgo produktu ar digitāliem elementiem, par izmantošanas un attiecīgās ievainojamības vispārējo raksturu, kā arī par veiktajiem korektīvajiem vai riska mazināšanas pasākumiem, kā arī korektīvajiem vai riska mazināšanas pasākumiem, ko var veikt lietotāji, attiecīgā gadījumā norādot arī to, cik lielā mērā ražotājs uzskata paziņoto informāciju par sensitīvu;

c) 

ja vien attiecīgā informācija jau nav sniegta, ne vēlāk kā 14 dienas pēc tam, kad ir pieejams korektīvs vai riska mazināšanas pasākums, galīgo ziņojumu, kurā iekļauj vismaz šādu informāciju:

i) 

ievainojamības apraksts, tostarp tās nopietnības pakāpe un ietekme;

ii) 

ja pieejama, informācija par visiem ļaundariem, kas ir izmantojuši vai izmanto ievainojamību;

iii) 

sīkāka informācija par drošības atjauninājumu vai citiem korektīviem pasākumiem, kas darīti pieejami, lai novērstu ievainojamību.
14. pants 3.
Ražotājs par jebkuru nopietnu incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību un par ko tam kļūst zināms, saskaņā ar šā panta 7. punktu paziņo vienlaikus par koordinatoru izraudzītajai CSIRT un ENISA. Ražotājs par šo incidentu paziņo, izmantojot vienoto ziņošanas platformu, kas izveidota, ievērojot 16. pantu.
14. pants 4.

Šā panta 3. punktā minētās paziņošanas nolūkos ražotājs iesniedz:

a) 

agrīno brīdinājumu par nopietnu incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību bez nepamatotas kavēšanās un jebkurā gadījumā 24 stundu laikā pēc tam, kad ražotājs par to uzzinājis, tostarp vismaz to, vai pastāv aizdomas, ka incidentu ir izraisījušas nelikumīgas vai ļaunprātīgas darbības, attiecīgā gadījumā norādot arī dalībvalstis, kuru teritorijā saskaņā ar ražotāja rīcībā esošo informāciju tā produkts ar digitāliem elementiem ir darīts pieejams;

b) 

ja vien attiecīgā informācija jau nav sniegta, bez liekas kavēšanās un jebkurā gadījumā 72 stundu laikā pēc tam, kad ražotājs uzzinājis par incidentu, paziņojumu par incidentu, kurā sniedz vispārīgu informāciju, ja tāda ir pieejama, par incidenta būtību, incidenta sākotnējo novērtējumu, kā arī par veiktajiem korektīvajiem vai riska mazināšanas pasākumiem un korektīvajiem vai riska mazināšanas pasākumiem, ko var veikt lietotāji, attiecīgā gadījumā norādot arī to, cik lielā mērā ražotājs uzskata paziņoto informāciju par sensitīvu;

c) 

ja vien attiecīgā informācija jau nav sniegta, galīgo ziņojumu viena mēneša laikā pēc b) apakšpunktā minētā paziņojuma par incidentu iesniegšanas, tajā iekļaujot vismaz:

i) 

incidenta, tostarp tā nopietnības un ietekmes, sīku aprakstu;

ii) 

apdraudējuma veidu vai pamatcēloni, kas, visticamāk, izraisījis incidentu;

iii) 

piemērotos un piemērošanas stadijā esošos riska mazināšanas pasākumus.
14. pants 5.

Šā panta 3. punkta nolūkos incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību, uzskata par nopietnu, ja:

a) 

tas negatīvi ietekmē vai var negatīvi ietekmēt produkta ar digitāliem elementiem spēju aizsargāt sensitīvu vai svarīgu datu vai funkciju pieejamību, autentiskumu, integritāti vai konfidencialitāti; vai

b) 

tā rezultātā produktā ar digitāliem elementiem vai produkta ar digitāliem elementiem lietotāja tīklā un informācijas sistēmās ir ielaists vai izpildīts ļaunprātīgs kods vai var tikt ielaists vai izpildīts ļaunprātīgs kods.
14. pants 6.
Vajadzības gadījumā par koordinatoru izraudzītā CSIRT, kas saņēmusi sākotnējo paziņojumu, var pieprasīt ražotājiem iesniegt starpposma ziņojumu par attiecīgajiem statusa atjauninājumiem saistībā ar aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību vai nopietnu incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību.
14. pants 7.
Šā panta 1. un 3. punktā minētos paziņojumus iesniedz 16. pantā minētajā vienotajā ziņošanas platformā, izmantojot vienu no 16. panta 1. punktā minētajiem elektroniskā paziņojuma galapunktiem. Paziņojumu iesniedz, izmantojot tās CSIRT elektroniskā paziņojuma galapunktu, kas izraudzīta par tās dalībvalsts koordinatoru, kurā ir ražotāju galvenā iedibinājuma vieta Savienībā, un tas vienlaikus ir pieejams ENISA.

Šīs regulas nolūkos tiks uzskatīts, ka ražotāja galvenā iedibinājuma vieta Savienībā ir tajā dalībvalstī, kurā lielākoties tiek pieņemti lēmumi saistībā ar tā produktu ar digitāliem elementiem kiberdrošības riska pārvaldības pasākumiem. Ja šādu dalībvalsti nevar noteikt, uzskata, ka galvenais iedibinājums ir dalībvalstī, kurā attiecīgajam ražotājam ir iedibinājums ar vislielāko darbinieku skaitu Savienībā.

Ja ražotājam Savienībā nav galvenās iedibinājuma vietas, tas 1. un 3. punktā minētos paziņojumus iesniedz, izmantojot tās CSIRT elektroniskā paziņojuma galapunktu, kas izraudzīta par koordinatoru dalībvalstī, kura noteikta saskaņā ar šādu secību un pamatojoties uz ražotājam pieejamo informāciju:

a) 

dalībvalsts, kurā ir iedibināts pilnvarotais pārstāvis, kas darbojas ražotāja vārdā attiecībā uz lielāko skaitu minētā ražotāja produktu ar digitāliem elementiem;

b) 

dalībvalsts, kurā ir iedibināts importētājs, kas laiž tirgū lielāko skaitu minētā ražotāja produktu ar digitāliem elementiem;

c) 

dalībvalsts, kurā ir iedibināts izplatītājs, kas dara pieejamu tirgū lielāko skaitu minētā ražotāja produktu ar digitāliem elementiem;

d) 

dalībvalsts, kurā atrodas lielākais minētā ražotāja produktu ar digitāliem elementiem lietotāju skaits.

Saistībā ar trešās daļas d) apakšpunktu ražotājs var iesniegt paziņojumus par jebkuru turpmāku aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību vai nopietnu incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību, tai pašai CSIRT, kura izraudzīta par koordinatoru un kurai tas ziņojis pirmoreiz.
14. pants 8.
Pēc tam, kad ražotājs uzzinājis par aktīvi izmantotu ievainojamību vai nopietnu incidentu, kas ietekmē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem drošību, ražotājs informē skartos produkta ar digitāliem elementiem lietotājus un attiecīgā gadījumā visus lietotājus par minēto ievainojamību vai incidentu, un vajadzības gadījumā par jebkādu riska mazināšanu un korektīviem pasākumiem, ko lietotāji var veikt, lai mazinātu minētās ievainojamības vai incidenta ietekmi, attiecīgā gadījumā strukturētā, mašīnlasāmā formātā, kas ir viegli automātiski apstrādājams. Ja ražotājs laikus neinformē produkta ar digitāliem elementiem lietotājus, paziņotās CSIRT, kas izraudzītas par koordinatoriem, var sniegt šādu informāciju lietotājiem, ja tā tiek uzskatīta par samērīgu un nepieciešamu, lai novērstu vai mazinātu minētās ievainojamības vai incidenta ietekmi.
14. pants 9.
Līdz 2025. gada 11. decembrim Komisija pieņem deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 61. pantu, lai papildinātu šo regulu, precizējot noteikumus ar kiberdrošību saistītu iemeslu izmantošanai par attaisnojumu 16. panta 2. punktā minēto paziņojumu par aktīvi izmantotām ievainojamībām izplatīšanas atlikšanai. Sagatavojot deleģēto aktu projektus, Komisija sadarbojas ar CSIRT tīklu, kas izveidots, ievērojot Direktīvas (ES) 2022/2555 15. pantu, un ENISA.
14. pants 10.
Komisija ar īstenošanas aktiem var papildus precizēt šajā pantā, kā arī 15. un 16. pantā minēto paziņojumu formātu un paziņošanas procedūras. Minētos īstenošanas aktus pieņem saskaņā ar pārbaudes procedūru, kas minēta 62. panta 2. punktā. Komisija minēto īstenošanas aktu projektu sagatavošanā sadarbojas ar CSIRT tīklu un ENISA.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
SCF Incident Classification & Prioritization

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

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 Incident Stakeholder Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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 Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data

Description

Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

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 Incident Classification & Prioritization

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

∙ National Cyber Incident Scoring
System (NCISS) (https://cisa.gov)

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 classes of incidents and actions to take to ensure the continuation of organizational missions and business functions.

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 Incident Stakeholder Reporting

Description

Mechanisms exist to timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 timely-report incidents to applicable:
(1) Internal stakeholders;
(2) Affected clients & third-parties; and
(3) Regulatory authorities.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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 Cyber Incident Reporting for Sensitive / Regulated Data

Description

Mechanisms exist to report sensitive and/or regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT)

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

Incident Response (IRO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IRO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Incident response-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 report sensitive/regulated data incidents in a timely manner.

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 Disclosure of Vulnerabilities

Description

Mechanisms exist to disclose information about vulnerabilities to relevant stakeholders, including:
(1) A description of the vulnerability(ies);
(2) Affected product(s) and/or service(s);
(3) Potential impact of the vulnerability(ies);
(4) Severity of the vulnerability(ies); and
(5) Guidance to remediate the vulnerability(ies).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Notify customers of vulnerabilities in any developed products via email/website

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

∙ Security advisory template and distribution process
∙ security.txt / contact for vulnerability reports

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

∙ Vulnerability disclosure process with advisories (description, impact, remediation)
∙ Coordinated disclosure timelines

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

∙ Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) disclosure process (ISO/IEC 29147)
∙ CVE issuance for product vulnerabilities
∙ Customer notification channels

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

∙ Enterprise coordinated vulnerability disclosure program (ISO/IEC 29147, CNA participation)
∙ Public advisory portal and machine-readable advisories (CSAF)
∙ Regulatory notification (e.g., EU CRA) integration

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

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing 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 TDA 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 disclose information about vulnerabilities to relevant stakeholders, including:
(1) A description of the vulnerability(ies);
(2) Affected product(s) and/or service(s);
(3) Potential impact of the vulnerability(ies);
(4) Severity of the vulnerability(ies); and
(5) Guidance to remediate the vulnerability(ies).

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.