+Materiality Determination

Materiality Determination

Description

Mechanisms exist to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
∙ Simple materiality threshold definition (document what constitutes a material incident)

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

∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
∙ Documented materiality criteria aligned to business impact and applicable regulations

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

∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
∙ Documented materiality thresholds (financial, reputational, operational, regulatory)
∙ SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules considered (if applicable)

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

∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
∙ Formal materiality determination process aligned to SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules (if public)
∙ Cross-functional materiality review team (Legal, Finance, CISO, Operations)

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

∙ SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
∙ Enterprise materiality determination framework (SEC Item 1.05, PCAOB, SOX alignment)
∙ Board-approved materiality thresholds with regular review cycle
∙ Automated materiality scoring integrated with incident response workflows

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

1.1 Referenzi

1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati

1.3 Regolamenti relatati

2. Rekwiżiti identifikati

Rekwiżiti

3. Regolamenti relatati

Regolamenti
EULAW Artikolu 45 1

1.   L-entitajiet finanzjarji jistgħu jiskambjaw bejniethom informazzjoni u intelligence dwar theddid ċibernetiku, inkluż indikaturi ta’ kompromess, tattiċi, tekniki, u proċeduri, allerti dwar is-sigurtà ċibernetika u għodod ta’ konfigurazzjoni, sa fejn tali kondiviżjoni ta’ informazzjoni u intelligence:

(a)

ikollha l-għan li ttejjeb ir-reżiljenza operazzjonali diġitali tal-entitajiet finanzjarji, b’mod partikolari billi żżid is-sensibilizzazzjoni b’rabta mat-theddid ċibernetiku, tillimita jew timpedixxi l-kapaċità tat-theddid ċibernetiku milli jinxtered, u tappoġġja kapaċitajiet ta’ difiża, tekniki ta’ detezzjoni tat-theddid, strateġiji ta’ mitigazzjoni jew stadji ta’ rispons u rkupru;

(b)

isseħħ fi ħdan komunitajiet fdati ta’ entitajiet finanzjarji;

(c)

tkun implimentata permezz ta’ arranġamenti ta’ kondiviżjoni ta’ informazzjoni li jipproteġu n-natura potenzjalment sensittiva tal-informazzjoni kondiviża, u li jkunu rregolati minn regoli ta’ kondotta b’rispett sħiħ tal-kunfidenzjalità tan-negozju, tal-protezzjoni tad-data personali f’konformità mar-Regolament (UE) 2016/679 u tal-linji gwida dwar il-politika tal-kompetizzjoni.
EULAW Artikolu 45 2

2.   Għall-fini tal-paragrafu 1, il-punt (c), l-arranġamenti ta’ kondiviżjoni ta’ informazzjoni għandhom jiddefinixxu l-kondizzjonijiet għall-parteċipazzjoni u, fejn xieraq, għandhom jistabbilixxu d-dettalji dwar l-involviment tal-awtoritajiet pubbliċi u l-kapaċità li fiha dawn jistgħu jkunu assoċjati mal-arranġamenti ta’ kondiviżjoni ta’ informazzjoni, dwar l-involviment ta’ fornituri terzi ta’ servizzi tal-ICT, u dwar l-elementi operazzjonali, inkluż l-użu ta’ pjattaformi tal-IT dedikati.

Kwistjonijiet marbuta

Links
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 07
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
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 Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
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
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
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 Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
is blocked by GOV-07 Materiality Determination – Assessment Procedure
blocks DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
  • 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.