+Defined Roles & Responsibilities
---+Assigned Roles & Responsibilities Awareness

Defined Roles & Responsibilities

Description

Mechanisms exist to define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment
∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix

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

Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.
▪ Formal roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity and/or data protection are not consistent and/or standardized.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization.
▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.

Level 3 Well Defined

Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Pārskats

Assigned Roles & Responsibilities Awareness

Description

Mechanisms exist to communicate with users about their roles and responsibilities to maintain a safe and secure working environment.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Formal onboarding training
∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)

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

∙ Formal onboarding training
∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)

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

∙ Formal onboarding training
∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)

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

∙ Formal onboarding training
∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)

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

∙ Formal onboarding training
∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)

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

Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization.
▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.

Level 3 Well Defined

Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 communicate with users about their roles and responsibilities to maintain a safe and secure working environment.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie tiesību akti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie tiesību akti

Tiesību akti
EULAW 2. pants IKT drošības politikas, procedūru, protokolu un rīku vispārējie elementi
-
EULAW 15. pants IKT projektu pārvaldība
-
EULAW 17. pants IKT izmaiņu pārvaldība
-
EULAW 19. pants Cilvēkresursu politika

19. pants

Cilvēkresursu politika

Finanšu vienības savā cilvēkresursu politikā vai citā attiecīgā politikā ietver visus šādus ar IKT drošību saistītus elementus:

a) 

jebkādas īpašas atbildības par IKT drošību identifikācija un uzticēšana;

b) 

prasības finanšu vienības un trešo personu, kas sniedz IKT pakalpojumus, darbiniekiem, kuri izmanto finanšu vienības IKT aktīvus vai tiem piekļūst:

i) 

iepazīties ar finanšu vienības IKT drošības politiku, procedūrām un protokoliem un tos ievērot;

ii) 

zināt par ziņošanas kanāliem, ko finanšu vienība izveidojusi, lai atklātu anomālu uzvedību, tajā skaitā attiecīgā gadījumā par ziņošanas kanāliem, kas izveidoti atbilstīgi Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvai (ES) 2019/1937 ( 1 );

iii) 

izbeidzot darba attiecības, nodot finanšu vienībai visus to rīcībā esošos IKT aktīvus un materiālos informācijas aktīvus, kas pieder finanšu vienībai.
EULAW 21. pants Piekļuves kontrole

21. pants

Piekļuves kontrole

Kā daļu no savas piekļuves pārvaldības tiesību kontroles finanšu vienības izstrādā, dokumentē un īsteno politiku, kas ietver visus no šiem elementiem:

a) 

IKT piekļuves tiesību piešķiršana, pamatojoties uz principiem “vajadzība zināt”, “vajadzība izmantot” un mazāko tiesību principu, arī attiecībā uz attālu piekļuvi un piekļuvi ārkārtas gadījumā;

b) 

uzdevumu nošķiršana, lai novērstu nepamatotu piekļuvi kritiski svarīgiem datiem vai novērstu tādu piekļuves tiesību kombināciju piešķiršanu, ko var izmantot kontroļu apiešanai;

c) 

noteikums par lietotāja pārskatatbildību, ciktāl iespējams, ierobežojot vispārējo un dalīto lietotāja kontu izmantošanu un nodrošinot, ka lietotāji vienmēr ir identificējami attiecībā uz darbībām, kas veiktas IKT sistēmās;

d) 

noteikums par ierobežojumiem piekļuvei IKT aktīviem, izklāstot kontroles un rīkus neatļautas piekļuves novēršanai;

e) 

kontu pārvaldības procedūras, lai piešķirtu, mainītu vai atsauktu piekļuves tiesības lietotāju un vispārējiem kontiem, tajā skaitā vispārējiem administratoru kontiem, ietverot noteikumu par visu turpmāk minēto:

i) 

uzdevumu un atbildības piešķiršana par piekļuves tiesību piešķiršanu, pārskatīšanu un atsaukšanu;

ii) 

privileģētas, ārkārtas un administratora piekļuves piešķiršana, pamatojoties uz vajadzību zināt vai uz ad hoc pamata, attiecībā uz visām IKT sistēmām;

iii) 

piekļuves tiesību tūlītēja atsaukšana darba attiecību izbeigšanas gadījumā vai ja piekļuve vairs nav nepieciešama;

iv) 

piekļuves tiesību atjaunināšana, kad ir nepieciešamas izmaiņas un vismaz gadā attiecībā uz visām IKT sistēmām, izņemot IKT sistēmas, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas, un vismaz reizi sešos mēnešos attiecībā uz IKT sistēmām, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas;

f) 

autentifikācijas metodes, ietverot visus šos elementus:

i) 

autentifikācijas metožu izmantošana, kas ir samērīga ar klasifikāciju, kura noteikta saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 8. panta 1. punktu, un ar IKT aktīvu vispārējo riska profilu, arī ņemot vērā paraugpraksi;

ii) 

spēcīgu autentifikācijas metožu izmantošana saskaņā ar paraugpraksi un metodēm attiecībā uz attālu piekļuvi finanšu vienības tīklam, privileģētu piekļuvi, piekļuvi IKT aktīviem, kas atbalsta kritiskas vai svarīgas funkcijas, vai IKT aktīviem, kas ir publiski pieejami;

g) 

fiziskās piekļuves kontroles pasākumi, tajā skaitā:

i) 

to fizisko personu identifikācija un reģistrēšana žurnālā, kurām ir atļauts piekļūt telpām, datu centriem un finanšu vienības par sensitīvām noteiktām vietām, kur atrodas IKT un informācijas aktīvi;

ii) 

fiziskās piekļuves kritiskiem IKT aktīviem piešķiršana tikai pilnvarotām personām saskaņā ar principu “vajadzība zināt” un mazāko tiesību principu un uz ad hoc pamata;

iii) 

uzraudzība attiecībā uz fizisko piekļuvi telpām, datu centriem un finanšu vienības par sensitīvām noteiktām vietām, kur atrodas IKT un informācijas aktīvi, vai abi;

iv) 

fiziskās piekļuves tiesību pārskatīšana, lai nodrošinātu, ka nevajadzīgas piekļuves tiesības tiek steidzīgi atsauktas.

Šā punkta e) apakšpunkta i) punkta nolūkos finanšu vienības nosaka glabāšanas periodu, ņemot vērā darbības un informācijas drošības mērķus, iemeslus, kādēļ notikums tiek reģistrēts žurnālos, un IKT riska novērtējuma rezultātus.

Šā punkta e) apakšpunkta ii) punkta nolūkos finanšu vienības, ja iespējams, izmanto speciālus kontus administratīvu uzdevumu veikšanai IKT sistēmās. Ja tas ir iespējams un atbilstoši, finanšu vienības ievieš automatizētus risinājumus privileģētas piekļuves pārvaldībai.

Šā punkta g) apakšpunkta i) punkta nolūkos identifikācija un reģistrēšana žurnālos ir samērīga ar telpu, datu centru, par sensitīvām noteikto vietu svarīgumu un tajās notiekošo darbību vai esošo IKT sistēmu kritiskumu.

Šā punkta g) apakšpunkta iii) punkta nolūkos uzraudzība ir samērīga ar klasifikāciju, kas noteikta saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2022/2554 8. panta 1. punktu, un vietas, kurai piekļūst, kritiskumu.
EULAW 23. pants Anomālu darbību atklāšana un kritēriji ar IKT saistītu incidentu atklāšanai un reaģēšanai uz tiem
-
EULAW 28. pants Pārvaldība un organizācija
-
EULAW 5. pants Pārvaldība un organizācija
-
EULAW 32. pants Apstrādes drošība
-
EULAW Article 5 2

2.   The management body of the financial entity shall define, approve, oversee and be responsible for the implementation of all arrangements related to the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1).

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the management body shall:

(a)

bear the ultimate responsibility for managing the financial entity’s ICT risk;

(b)

put in place policies that aim to ensure the maintenance of high standards of availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality, of data;

(c)

set clear roles and responsibilities for all ICT-related functions and establish appropriate governance arrangements to ensure effective and timely communication, cooperation and coordination among those functions;

(d)

bear the overall responsibility for setting and approving the digital operational resilience strategy as referred to in Article 6(8), including the determination of the appropriate risk tolerance level of ICT risk of the financial entity, as referred to in Article 6(8), point (b);

(e)

approve, oversee and periodically review the implementation of the financial entity’s ICT business continuity policy and ICT response and recovery plans, referred to, respectively, in Article 11(1) and (3), which may be adopted as a dedicated specific policy forming an integral part of the financial entity’s overall business continuity policy and response and recovery plan;

(f)

approve and periodically review the financial entity’s ICT internal audit plans, ICT audits and material modifications to them;

(g)

allocate and periodically review the appropriate budget to fulfil the financial entity’s digital operational resilience needs in respect of all types of resources, including relevant ICT security awareness programmes and digital operational resilience training referred to in Article 13(6), and ICT skills for all staff;

(h)

approve and periodically review the financial entity’s policy on arrangements regarding the use of ICT services provided by ICT third-party service providers;

(i)

put in place, at corporate level, reporting channels enabling it to be duly informed of the following:

(i)

arrangements concluded with ICT third-party service providers on the use of ICT services,

(ii)

any relevant planned material changes regarding the ICT third-party service providers,

(iii)

the potential impact of such changes on the critical or important functions subject to those arrangements, including a risk analysis summary to assess the impact of those changes, and at least major ICT-related incidents and their impact, as well as response, recovery and corrective measures.

Saistītie uzdevumi

Saites
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to People
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
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 Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
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 Dysfunctional Management Practices
blocks Human Error
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SP-01.01B
blocks OPS-10.01B
blocks OPS-32.03B
is blocked by HRS-04 Defined Roles & Responsibilities – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-13 Security and Privacy Workforce
blocks PS-09 Position Descriptions
blocks PS-09 [L] Position Descriptions
blocks PS-09 [M] Position Descriptions
blocks PS-09 [H] Position Descriptions
blocks PM-13 [P] Security and Privacy Workforce
blocks 03.01.22 Publicly Accessible Content
blocks 03.02.02 Role-Based Training
blocks 03.06.04 Incident Response Training
blocks 03.06.05 Incident Response Plan
blocks 03.07.06 Maintenance Personnel
blocks 03.08.02 Media Access
blocks 03.15.03 Rules of Behavior
blocks 03.16.03 External System Services
blocks GV.RM-05 Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from suppliers and other third parties
blocks GV.RR Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities
blocks GV.RR-02 Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced
blocks ID.AM Asset Management
blocks PO.2 Implement Roles and Responsibilities
blocks PO.2.1 Create new roles and alter responsibilities for existing roles as needed to encompass all parts of the SDLC. Periodically review and maintain the …
  • 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.