+Executive Leadership Oversight of Security, Compliance & Resilience Controls
---+Internal Audit Function
---+Periodic Audits
---+Audit Planning Activities
|
Executive Leadership Oversight of Security, Compliance & Resilience Controls
Description
Mechanisms exist to provide a security, compliance and resilience controls oversight function that reports to the organization's executive leadership.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an entity-defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data protection control assessments.
▪ A formal report is generated for each security assessment/audit with sufficient details to understand the organization's ability to demonstrate conformity with its requirements.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 provide a security, compliance and resilience controls oversight function that reports to the organization's executive leadership.
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
| Titlu |
Standard |
|
Internal Audit Function
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing executive management with insights into the overall management of the organization's security, compliance and resilience capabilities.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Internal audit program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Internal audit program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Internal audit program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Internal audit program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Internal audit program
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 implement an internal audit function that is capable of providing senior organization management with insights into the appropriateness of the organization's technology and information governance processes.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Compliance (CPL) 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.
|
|
Periodic Audits
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Annual self-assessment against applicable compliance requirements
∙ External compliance review if contractually required
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Annual internal review of key security controls
∙ External audit for compliance requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Internal audit program
∙ Annual external compliance audits
∙ GRC platform for audit tracking.
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise internal audit function
∙ Annual external audits.
∙ GRC platform with audit management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise internal audit program with dedicated resources
∙ Multiple external compliance audits
∙ Continuous control monitoring and automated audit reporting
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an entity-defined set of controls to conduct cybersecurity and data protection control assessments.
▪ Specialized assessments are conducted for specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations, as well as business-critical TAASD.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity use an impartial member of its team or a third-party assessor to perform an independent assessment of cybersecurity and data protection controls.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 conduct periodic audits of security, compliance and resilience controls to evaluate conformity with the organization's documented policies, standards and procedures.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Compliance (CPL) 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
Compliance (CPL) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
Audit Planning Activities
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Internal audit program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Internal audit program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Internal audit program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Internal audit program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Internal audit program
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 thoughtfully plan audits by including input from operational risk and compliance partners to minimize the impact of audit-related activities on business operations.
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.
|
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Regolamenti relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
Links
| Tip ta’ link |
Kwistjoni |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 05 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Respond |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Accountability / Attribution |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Privilege Elevation |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
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
|
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 |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Detect |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Data Obfuscation |
|
blocks
|
Junk Data |
|
blocks
|
Steganography |
|
blocks
|
Protocol or Service Impersonation |
|
blocks
|
OS Credential Dumping |
|
blocks
|
LSASS Memory |
|
blocks
|
Security Account Manager |
|
blocks
|
NTDS |
|
blocks
|
LSA Secrets |
|
blocks
|
Cached Domain Credentials |
|
blocks
|
DCSync |
|
blocks
|
Proc Filesystem |
|
blocks
|
/etc/passwd and /etc/shadow |
|
blocks
|
Fallback Channels |
|
blocks
|
SMB/Windows Admin Shares |
|
blocks
|
VNC |
|
blocks
|
Scheduled Transfer |
|
blocks
|
Data Transfer Size Limits |
|
blocks
|
Masquerading |
|
blocks
|
Rename Legitimate Utilities |
|
blocks
|
Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location |
|
blocks
|
Double File Extension |
|
blocks
|
Boot or Logon Initialization Scripts |
|
blocks
|
Login Hook |
|
blocks
|
Network Logon Script |
|
blocks
|
RC Scripts |
|
blocks
|
Startup Items |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel |
|
blocks
|
Network Service Discovery |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Physical Medium |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration over USB |
|
blocks
|
Systemd Timers |
|
blocks
|
Proc Memory |
|
blocks
|
GUI Input Capture |
|
blocks
|
Command and Scripting Interpreter |
|
blocks
|
Visual Basic |
|
blocks
|
JavaScript |
|
blocks
|
AutoHotKey & AutoIT |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation |
|
blocks
|
Indicator Removal |
|
blocks
|
Clear Command History |
|
blocks
|
Clear Network Connection History and Configurations |
|
blocks
|
Clear Mailbox Data |
|
blocks
|
Clear Persistence |
|
blocks
|
Application Layer Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Web Protocols |
|
blocks
|
File Transfer Protocols |
|
blocks
|
Mail Protocols |
|
blocks
|
DNS |
|
blocks
|
Software Deployment Tools |
|
blocks
|
Valid Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Default Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Local Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Accounts |
|
blocks
|
Taint Shared Content |
|
blocks
|
Proxy |
|
blocks
|
Internal Proxy |
|
blocks
|
External Proxy |
|
blocks
|
Multi-hop Proxy |
|
blocks
|
Non-Application Layer Protocol |
|
blocks
|
Web Service |
|
blocks
|
Dead Drop Resolver |
|
blocks
|
Bidirectional Communication |
|
blocks
|
One-Way Communication |
|
blocks
|
Multi-Stage Channels |
|
blocks
|
Ingress Tool Transfer |
|
blocks
|
Brute Force |
|
blocks
|
Password Guessing |
|
blocks
|
Password Cracking |
|
blocks
|
Password Spraying |
|
blocks
|
Credential Stuffing |
|
blocks
|
Multi-Factor Authentication Interception |
|
blocks
|
Data Encoding |
|
blocks
|
Standard Encoding |
|
blocks
|
Non-Standard Encoding |
|
blocks
|
Software Extensions |
|
blocks
|
Browser Session Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Forced Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Drive-by Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Exploit Public-Facing Application |
|
blocks
|
Supply Chain Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools |
|
blocks
|
Compromise Software Supply Chain |
|
blocks
|
BITS Jobs |
|
blocks
|
Password Policy Discovery |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Client Execution |
|
blocks
|
User Execution |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Link |
|
blocks
|
Malicious File |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Image |
|
blocks
|
Traffic Signaling |
|
blocks
|
Port Knocking |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation of Remote Services |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Stealth |
|
blocks
|
Exploitation for Credential Access |
|
blocks
|
Data from Information Repositories |
|
blocks
|
Confluence |
|
blocks
|
Sharepoint |
|
blocks
|
Code Repositories |
|
blocks
|
Customer Relationship Management Software |
|
blocks
|
Messaging Applications |
|
blocks
|
System Binary Proxy Execution |
|
blocks
|
Control Panel |
|
blocks
|
Regsvr32 |
|
blocks
|
Rundll32 |
|
blocks
|
Verclsid |
|
blocks
|
Electron Applications |
|
blocks
|
Remote Access Tools |
|
blocks
|
Template Injection |
|
blocks
|
File and Directory Permissions Modification |
|
blocks
|
Windows Permissions |
|
blocks
|
Linux and Mac Permissions |
|
blocks
|
Service Stop |
|
blocks
|
Network Denial of Service |
|
blocks
|
Direct Network Flood |
|
blocks
|
Reflection Amplification |
|
blocks
|
Endpoint Denial of Service |
|
blocks
|
OS Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Service Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Application Exhaustion Flood |
|
blocks
|
Application or System Exploitation |
|
blocks
|
Steal Application Access Token |
|
blocks
|
Data from Cloud Storage |
|
blocks
|
Transfer Data to Cloud Account |
|
blocks
|
Steal Web Session Cookie |
|
blocks
|
ROMMONkit |
|
blocks
|
TFTP Boot |
|
blocks
|
Create or Modify System Process |
|
blocks
|
Systemd Service |
|
blocks
|
Windows Management Instrumentation Event Subscription |
|
blocks
|
Unix Shell Configuration Modification |
|
blocks
|
PowerShell Profile |
|
blocks
|
Installer Packages |
|
blocks
|
Time Providers |
|
blocks
|
XDG Autostart Entries |
|
blocks
|
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism |
|
blocks
|
Sudo and Sudo Caching |
|
blocks
|
TCC Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Pass the Ticket |
|
blocks
|
Unsecured Credentials |
|
blocks
|
Credentials In Files |
|
blocks
|
Credentials in Registry |
|
blocks
|
Private Keys |
|
blocks
|
Cloud Instance Metadata API |
|
blocks
|
SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Credentials from Password Stores |
|
blocks
|
Keychain |
|
blocks
|
Securityd Memory |
|
blocks
|
Modify Authentication Process |
|
blocks
|
Domain Controller Authentication |
|
blocks
|
Adversary-in-the-Middle |
|
blocks
|
Name Resolution Poisoning and SMB Relay |
|
blocks
|
ARP Cache Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
DHCP Spoofing |
|
blocks
|
Evil Twin |
|
blocks
|
Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets |
|
blocks
|
Silver Ticket |
|
blocks
|
Kerberoasting |
|
blocks
|
AS-REP Roasting |
|
blocks
|
Ccache Files |
|
blocks
|
SSH Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
NTFS File Attributes |
|
blocks
|
Process Argument Spoofing |
|
blocks
|
Data Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Stored Data Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Runtime Data Manipulation |
|
blocks
|
Phishing |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing Attachment |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing Link |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing via Service |
|
blocks
|
Exfiltration Over Web Service |
|
blocks
|
Dynamic Resolution |
|
blocks
|
Domain Generation Algorithms |
|
blocks
|
System Services |
|
blocks
|
Service Execution |
|
blocks
|
Lateral Tool Transfer |
|
blocks
|
Non-Standard Port |
|
blocks
|
Protocol Tunneling |
|
blocks
|
Encrypted Channel |
|
blocks
|
Symmetric Cryptography |
|
blocks
|
Asymmetric Cryptography |
|
blocks
|
Hijack Execution Flow |
|
blocks
|
Dylib Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking |
|
blocks
|
Path Interception by Unquoted Path |
|
blocks
|
KernelCallbackTable |
|
blocks
|
AppDomainManager |
|
blocks
|
Phishing for Information |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing Service |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing Attachment |
|
blocks
|
Spearphishing Link |
|
blocks
|
Network Boundary Bridging |
|
blocks
|
Network Address Translation Traversal |
|
blocks
|
Data from Configuration Repository |
|
blocks
|
SNMP (MIB Dump) |
|
blocks
|
Network Device Configuration Dump |
|
blocks
|
Debugger Evasion |
|
blocks
|
Plist File Modification |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
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
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.01B |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.01AS |
|
blocks
|
COM-02.01AC |
|
blocks
|
COM-03.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
CPL-07 Executive Leadership Oversight of Security, Compliance & Resilience Controls – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
CA-07 Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
CA-07(01) Independent Assessment |
|
blocks
|
PM-14 Testing, Training, and Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
CA-07 [L] Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
CA-07 [M] Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
CA-07(01) [M] Independent Assessment |
|
blocks
|
CA-07 [H] Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
CA-07(01) [H] Independent Assessment |
|
blocks
|
CA-07 [P] Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
PM-14 [P] Testing, Training, and Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
03.12.01 Security Assessment |
|
blocks
|
03.12.03 Continuous Monitoring |
|
blocks
|
GV.OC-03 Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements regarding cybersecurity - including privacy and civil liberties obligations - are understood and … |
- 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.
|