+Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
---+Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
---+Data Action Mapping
|
Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs)
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive and/or regulated data flows.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free, https://draw.io) or Microsoft Visio
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ draw.io (free) or Microsoft Visio
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com) or Microsoft Visio
∙ Network documentation tool (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Network topology tool (e.g., SolarWinds Network Topology Mapper, NetBox)
∙ Automated network diagram updates via discovery tools
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD)
∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD)
∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
∙ Enterprise network documentation platform (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM)
∙ Automated network discovery and diagram generation
∙ Diagrams integrated with CMDB and change management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST 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 maintain network architecture diagrams that:
(1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture;
(2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and
(3) Document all sensitive/regulated data flows.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.
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.
|
|
Data Action Mapping
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive and/or regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io) for data flow diagrams
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Microsoft Visio or draw.io (free, https://draw.io)
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Documented data flow diagrams with sensitivity labels
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ draw.io (https://draw.io)
∙ Data flow diagrams integrated with privacy impact assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Microsoft Visio
∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com)
∙ Data flow diagrams maintained in CMDB or GRC platform
∙ Automated data mapping tools (e.g., BigID, OneTrust Data Mapping)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise data flow/action mapping platform (e.g., BigID, OneTrust, Securiti.ai)
∙ Microsoft Visio / LucidChart for technical documentation
∙ Automated data lineage tools (e.g., Collibra, Alation)
∙ Data maps maintained current for regulatory compliance (GDPR Article 30)
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST 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 create and maintain a map of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Asset Management (AST) 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 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Regolamenti
| Sors |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 4 Politika tal-ġestjoni tal-assi tal-ICT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 13 Ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network
Artikolu 13
Ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network
L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom, bħala parti mis-salvagwardji li jiżguraw is-sigurtà tan-networks kontra l-intrużjonijiet u l-użu ħażin tad-data, jiżviluppaw, jiddokumentaw u jimplimentaw politiki, proċeduri, protokolli u għodod dwar il-ġestjoni tas-sigurtà tan-network, inklużi dawn kollha li ġejjin:
(a)
is-segregazzjoni u s-segmentazzjoni tas-sistemi u tan-networks tal-ICT filwaqt li jitqiesu:
(i)
il-kritikalità jew l-importanza tal-funzjoni li jappoġġaw dawk is-sistemi u n-networks tal-ICT;
(ii)
il-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554;
(iii)
il-profil tar-riskju kumplessiv tal-assi tal-ICT bl-użu ta’ dawk is-sistemi u networks;
(b)
id-dokumentazzjoni tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network u l-flussi tad-data kollha tal-entità finanzjarja;
(c)
l-użu ta’ network separat u ddedikat għall-amministrazzjoni tal-assi tal-ICT;
(d)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni ta’ kontrolli tal-aċċess għan-network biex jiġu evitati u identifikati konnessjonijiet man-network tal-entità finanzjarja minn kwalunkwe apparat jew sistema mhux awtorizzati, jew kwalunkwe punt tat-tmiem li ma jissodisfax ir-rekwiżiti ta’ sigurtà tal-entità finanzjarja;
(e)
il-kriptaġġ tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network li jgħaddu minn fuq in-networks korporattivi, in-networks pubbliċi, in-networks domestiċi, in-networks ta’ partijiet terzi, u n-networks mingħajr fili, għall-protokolli ta’ komunikazzjoni użati, filwaqt li jitqiesu r-riżultati tal-klassifikazzjoni tad-data approvata, ir-riżultati tal-valutazzjoni tar-riskju tal-ICT u l-kriptaġġ tal-konnessjonijiet tan-network imsemmija fl-Artikolu 6(2);
(f)
id-disinn ta’ networks f’konformità mar-rekwiżiti tas-sigurtà tal-ICT stabbiliti mill-entità finanzjarja, filwaqt li jitqiesu l-prattiki ewlenin biex jiġu żgurati l-kunfidenzjalità, l-integrità u d-disponibbiltà tan-network;
(g)
l-iżgurar tat-traffiku tan-network bejn in-networks interni u l-Internet u konnessjonijiet esterni oħrajn;
(h)
l-identifikazzjoni tar-rwoli u tar-responsabbiltajiet u tal-passi għall-ispeċifikazzjoni, għall-implimentazzjoni, għall-approvazzjoni, għat-tibdil u għar-rieżami tar-regoli dwar il-firewalls u tal-filtri tal-konnessjonijiet;
(i)
il-prestazzjoni tar-rieżamijiet tal-arkitettura tan-network u tad-disinn tas-sigurtà tan-network darba fis-sena, u perjodikament għall-mikrointrapriżi, biex jiġu identifikati l-vulnerabbiltajiet potenzjali;
(j)
il-miżuri biex jiġu iżolati temporanjament, meta meħtieġ, is-subnetworks, u l-komponenti u l-apparati tan-network;
(k)
l-implimentazzjoni ta’ linja bażi ta’ konfigurazzjoni sigura tal-komponenti kollha tan-network, u t-twebbis tan-network u tal-apparati tan-network f’konformità ma’ kwalunkwe struzzjoni tal-bejjiegħ, u, meta applikabbli, standards, kif iddefiniti fl-Artikolu 2, il-punt (1) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1025/2012, u prattiki ewlenin;
(l)
il-proċeduri biex jiġu llimitati, imblokkati u tterminati s-sistema u s-sessjonijiet mill-bogħod wara perjodu speċifikat ta’ inattività;
(m)
għall-ftehimiet dwar is-servizzi tan-network:
(i)
l-identifikazzjoni u l-ispeċifikazzjoni tal-miżuri tas-sigurtà tal-ICT u tal-informazzjoni, tal-livelli ta’ servizz u tar-rekwiżiti ta’ ġestjoni tas-servizzi kollha tan-network;
(ii)
jekk dawk is-servizzi humiex ipprovduti minn fornitur ta’ servizzi intragrupp tal-ICT jew minn fornituri terz ta’ servizzi tal-ICT.
Għall-finijiet tal-punt (h), l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom iwettqu r-rieżami tar-regoli dwar il-firewall u tal-filtri tal-konnessjonijiet fuq bażi regolari f’konformità mal-klassifikazzjoni stabbilita f’konformità mal-Artikolu 8(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 2022/2554 u mal-profil tar-riskju ġenerali tas-sistemi tal-ICT involuti. Għas-sistemi tal-ICT li jappoġġaw funzjonijiet kritiċi jew importanti, l-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jivverifikaw l-adegwatezza tar-regoli eżistenti dwar il-firewall u l-filtri ta’ konnessjoni mill-anqas kull 6 xhur.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 8 Identifikazzjoni
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikolu 8 4
4. L-entitajiet finanzjarji għandhom jidentifikaw l-assi kollha tal-informazzjoni u l-assi kollha tal-ICT, inkluż dawk fuq siti remoti, riżorsi tan-netwerk u t-tagħmir tal-hardware, u għandhom jimmappjaw dawk meqjusa kritiċi. Huma għandhom jimmappjaw il-konfigurazzjoni tal-assi tal-informazzjoni u l-assi tal-ICT u r-rabtiet u l-interdipendenzi bejn l-assi differenti tal-informazzjoni u l-assi tal-ICT.
|
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
- Secure Controls Framework -
"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.
|