+Artikel 19 Verplichtingen van importeurs
---+Artikel 19 1.
---+Artikel 19 2.
---+Artikel 19 3.
---+Artikel 19 4.
---+Artikel 19 5.
---+Artikel 19 6.
---+Artikel 19 7.
---+Artikel 19 8.

Artikel 19 Verplichtingen van importeurs

-

1. Overzicht

,
Artikel 19 1.
Importeurs brengen uitsluitend producten met digitale elementen in de handel die voldoen aan de essentiële cyberbeveiligingsvereisten van deel I van bijlage I, en indien de door de fabrikant ingestelde processen voldoen aan de essentiële cyberbeveiligingsvereisten van deel II van bijlage I.
Artikel 19 2.

Alvorens een product met digitale elementen in de handel te brengen, zorgen importeurs ervoor dat:

a) 

de fabrikant de juiste in artikel 32 bedoelde conformiteitsbeoordelingsprocedures heeft uitgevoerd;

b) 

de fabrikant de technische documentatie heeft opgesteld;

c) 

het product met digitale elementen is voorzien van de in artikel 30 bedoelde CE-markering en vergezeld gaat van de in artikel 13, lid 20, bedoelde EU-conformiteitsverklaring en de in bijlage II vastgestelde informatie en instructies voor de gebruiker, in een taal die gebruikers en markttoezichtautoriteiten gemakkelijk kunnen begrijpen;

d) 

de fabrikant aan de vereisten van artikel 13, leden 15, 16 en 19, heeft voldaan.

Voor de toepassing van dit lid moeten importeurs de nodige documenten kunnen verstrekken waaruit blijkt dat aan de vereisten van dit artikel is voldaan.
Artikel 19 3.
Wanneer een importeur van mening is of redenen heeft om aan te nemen dat een product met digitale elementen of de door de fabrikant ingestelde processen niet in overeenstemming zijn met deze verordening, brengt de importeur het product niet in de handel voordat dat product of de door de fabrikant ingestelde processen in overeenstemming zijn gebracht met deze verordening. Bovendien brengt de importeur, indien het product met digitale elementen een significant cyberbeveiligingsrisico inhoudt, de fabrikant en de markttoezichtautoriteiten daarvan op de hoogte.

Wanneer een importeur redenen heeft om aan te nemen dat een product met digitale elementen in het licht van niet-technische risicofactoren een significant cyberbeveiligingsrisico kan inhouden, stelt de importeur de markttoezichtautoriteiten daarvan op de hoogte. Na ontvangst van die informatie volgen de markttoezichtautoriteiten de in artikel 54, lid 2, bedoelde procedures.
Artikel 19 4.
Importeurs vermelden hun naam, geregistreerde handelsnaam of geregistreerde merk, het postadres, het e-mailadres of een ander digitaal communicatiemiddel, alsook, in voorkomend geval, de website waarop met hen contact kan worden opgenomen, op het product met digitale elementen, op de verpakking ervan of in een bij het product met digitale elementen gevoegd document. De contactgegevens worden gesteld in een voor de gebruikers en de markttoezichtautoriteiten gemakkelijk te begrijpen taal.
Artikel 19 5.
Importeurs die weten of redenen hebben om aan te nemen dat een door hen in de handel gebracht product met digitale elementen niet in overeenstemming is met deze verordening, nemen onmiddellijk de nodige corrigerende maatregelen om ervoor te zorgen dat het product met digitale elementen in overeenstemming wordt gebracht met deze verordening, of om het product zo nodig uit de handel te nemen of terug te roepen.

Wanneer importeurs kennis krijgen van een kwetsbaarheid in het product met digitale elementen, stellen zij de fabrikant zonder onnodige vertraging in kennis van die kwetsbaarheid. Bovendien brengen importeurs, indien het product met digitale elementen een significant cyberbeveiligingsrisico inhoudt, de markttoezichtautoriteiten van de lidstaten waar zij het product met digitale elementen op de markt hebben aangeboden, daarvan onmiddellijk op de hoogte, waarbij zij in het bijzonder de non-conformiteit en alle genomen corrigerende maatregelen uitvoerig beschrijven.
Artikel 19 6.
Importeurs houden gedurende ten minste tien jaar nadat het product met digitale elementen in de handel is gebracht of gedurende de ondersteuningsperiode indien die langer is, een exemplaar van de EU-conformiteitsverklaring ter beschikking van de markttoezichtautoriteiten en zorgen ervoor dat de technische documentatie op verzoek aan die autoriteiten kan worden verstrekt.
Artikel 19 7.
Importeurs verstrekken op een met redenen omkleed verzoek van een markttoezichtautoriteit aan die autoriteit alle benodigde informatie en documentatie, schriftelijk of in elektronische vorm, om de conformiteit van het product met digitale elementen met de essentiële cyberbeveiligingsvereisten van deel I van bijlage I, en van de processen die de fabrikant heeft ingesteld met de essentiële cyberbeveiligingsvereisten van deel II van bijlage I, aan te tonen, in een voor die autoriteit gemakkelijk te begrijpen taal. Op verzoek van die autoriteit verlenen zij medewerking aan alle maatregelen die zijn genomen om de cyberbeveiligingsrisico’s van een product met digitale elementen dat zij in de handel hebben gebracht, weg te nemen.
Artikel 19 8.
Wanneer de importeur van een product met digitale elementen er kennis van neemt dat de fabrikant van dat product zijn activiteiten heeft stopgezet en daardoor niet in staat is aan de verplichtingen van deze verordening te voldoen, stelt de importeur de betrokken markttoezichtautoriteiten in kennis van die situatie, alsook, met alle beschikbare middelen en voor zover mogelijk, de gebruikers van de producten met digitale elementen die in de handel zijn gebracht.

1.1 Referenties

1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen

1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden

2. Geïdentificeerde eisen

Eisen

3. Gerelateerde standaarden

Standaarden
SCF Statutory, Regulatory & Contractual Compliance

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, 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)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, 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)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, 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

Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.

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 perform an informal annual review of existing compliance requirements and research evolving or new 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 facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist

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

∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review

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

∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar

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

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team

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

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring

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 work with business stakeholders and process owners to assigned cybersecurity and/or data protection controls to comply with specific compliance 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 conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Maintain records for any required compliance filings

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

∙ Designate a compliance contact for required reporting
∙ Track reporting deadlines

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

∙ Compliance calendar for required submissions
∙ Documented reporting procedures

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

∙ Compliance tracking platform
∙ Dedicated compliance officer
∙ Standardized reporting templates

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

∙ Enterprise GRC platform for compliance reporting
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated regulatory submission tracking
∙ Legal and compliance integration

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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 submit status reporting of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities, as required.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to retain media and data in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program

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

∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program

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

∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program

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

∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data governance program

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

∙ Data retention program
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data governance 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

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Data protection controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to classify, protect and dispose of systems and data, including storage media.
▪ A manual data retention process exists.
▪ Media is securely stored until it is destroyed or sanitized using approved equipment, techniques and procedures.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ The data retention process is manual and IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to manage the process.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to dispose of, destroy, erase, and/or anonymize sensitive/regulated data.

Level 3 Well Defined

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 retain media and data in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to generate authoritative documentation (e.g., System Security Plan (SSP)) that:
(1) Identifies key architectural and implementation information on in-scope Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS);
(2) Reflects the current state of applied security, compliance and resilience controls on applicable People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) that are contained within the system boundary; and
(3) Provides a historical record of applied security controls, including changes.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)

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

∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)

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

∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)

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

∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)

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

∙ System Security Plan (SSP)
∙ System Security & Privacy Plan (SSPP)

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

Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Information Assurance (IA)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ IA management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop and maintain System Security Plans (SSPs) or similar documentation, to identify and maintain key architectural information for each business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

Level 3 Well Defined

Information Assurance (IAO) 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 IAO 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 IAO domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An information assurance team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of information assurance operations (e.g., assessment scheduling software and risk assessment software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAO 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 generate authoritative documentation (e.g., System Security Plan (SSP)) that:
(1) Identifies key architectural and implementation information on in-scope Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS);
(2) Reflects the current state of applied security, compliance and resilience controls on applicable People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) that are contained within the system boundary; and
(3) Provides a historical record of applied security controls, including changes.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

Description

Mechanisms exist to design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements

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

∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements

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

∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight

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

∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight

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

∙ Defined business processes
∙ Product / project management
∙ Defined technical requirements
∙ Defined business requirements
∙ System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) governance / oversight

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

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with TDA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Technology development & acquisition-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Secure development practices loosely conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern changes to the software library to prevent unauthorized changes and create an audit trail of changes made.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
▪ Development and acquisition management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.

Level 3 Well Defined

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TDA domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to design and implement product management processes to proactively govern the design, development and production of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to:
(1) Improve functionality;
(2) Enhance security and resiliency capabilities;
(3) Correct security deficiencies; and
(4) Conform with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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.