+Risk Management Program

Risk Management Program

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls that are aligned with:
(1) The organization's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM); and
(2) Industry-recognized cybersecurity risk management practices.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 implementation of strategic, operational and tactical risk management controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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. Przegląd

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane regulacje

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania

3. Powiązane regulacje

Regulacje
EULAW Artykuł 8 Zgodność z wymogami
-
EULAW Artykuł 9 System zarządzania ryzykiem
-
EULAW Artykuł 9 System zarządzania ryzykiem
-
EULAW Artykuł 9 System zarządzania ryzykiem
-
EULAW Artykuł 9 System zarządzania ryzykiem
-
EULAW Artykuł 17 System zarządzania jakością
-
EULAW Artykuł 1 Ogólny profil ryzyka i stopień złożoności

Artykuł 1

Ogólny profil ryzyka i stopień złożoności

Przy opracowywaniu i wdrażaniu polityk, procedur, protokołów i narzędzi w zakresie bezpieczeństwa ICT, o których mowa w tytule II, oraz uproszczonych ram zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT, o których mowa w tytule III, uwzględnia się wielkość i ogólny profil ryzyka podmiotu finansowego oraz charakter, skalę i elementy zwiększonego lub zmniejszonego stopnia złożoności realizowanych usług, działań i operacji, w tym elementy związane z:

a) 

szyfrowaniem i kryptografią;

b) 

bezpieczeństwem operacji ICT;

c) 

bezpieczeństwem sieci;

d) 

zarządzaniem projektami ICT i zmianą w systemach ICT;

e) 

potencjalnym wpływem ryzyka związanego z ICT na poufność, integralność i dostępność danych oraz zakłóceń na ciągłość i dostępność działań podmiotu finansowego.
EULAW Artykuł 2 Ogólne elementy polityk, procedur, protokołów i narzędzi w zakresie bezpieczeństwa ICT
-
EULAW Artykuł 3 Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT

Artykuł 3

Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT

Podmioty finansowe opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają polityki i procedury zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT, które obejmują wszystkie następujące elementy:

a) 

wskazanie zatwierdzenia poziomu tolerancji ryzyka w odniesieniu do ryzyka związanego z ICT ustanowionego zgodnie z art. 6 ust. 8 lit. b) rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554;

b) 

procedurę i metodykę przeprowadzania oceny ryzyka związanego z ICT, określające:

(i) 

podatności i zagrożenia, które wpływają lub mogą wpływać na wspierane funkcje biznesowe, systemy ICT i zasoby ICT wspierające te funkcje;

(ii) 

wskaźniki ilościowe lub jakościowe służące do pomiaru wpływu i prawdopodobieństwa wystąpienia podatności i zagrożeń, o których mowa w pkt (i);

c) 

procedurę określania, wdrażania i dokumentowania środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT w odniesieniu do zidentyfikowanego i ocenianego ryzyka związanego z ICT, w tym określenie środków przeciwdziałania ryzyku związanemu z ICT niezbędnych do sprowadzenia ryzyka związanego z ICT do poziomu tolerancji ryzyka, o którym mowa w lit. a);

d) 

w odniesieniu do rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, które nadal istnieje po wdrożeniu środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT, o których mowa w lit. c):

(i) 

przepisy dotyczące identyfikacji tego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT;

(ii) 

podział ról i obowiązków w odniesieniu do:

1) 

akceptacji rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, które przekracza poziom tolerancji ryzyka podmiotu finansowego, o którym mowa w lit. a);

2) 

procesu przeglądu, o którym mowa w lit. d) pkt (iv);

(iii) 

opracowanie wykazu akceptowanego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT, w tym uzasadnienia jego akceptacji;

(iv) 

przepisy dotyczące przeglądu akceptowanego rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT co najmniej raz w roku, w tym:

1) 

określenie wszelkich zmian rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT;

2) 

ocenę dostępnych środków łagodzących;

3) 

ocenę, czy powody uzasadniające akceptację rezydualnego ryzyka związanego z ICT są nadal aktualne i mają zastosowanie w dniu przeglądu;

e) 

przepisy dotyczące monitorowania:

(i) 

wszelkich zmian ryzyka związanego z ICT i krajobrazu cyberzagrożeń;

(ii) 

podatności i zagrożeń o charakterze wewnętrznym i zewnętrznym:

(iii) 

ryzyka związanego z ICT danego podmiotu finansowego, które umożliwia szybkie wykrywanie zmian, które mogą mieć wpływ na jego profil ryzyka związanego z ICT;

f) 

przepisy dotyczące procesu zapewniającego uwzględnienie wszelkich zmian w strategii biznesowej i strategii operacyjnej odporności cyfrowej podmiotu finansowego.

Do celów akapitu pierwszego lit. c) procedura, o której mowa w tej literze, zapewnia:

a) 

monitorowanie skuteczności wdrożonych środków traktowania ryzyka związanego z ICT;

b) 

ocenę, czy osiągnięto ustalone poziomy tolerancji ryzyka podmiotu finansowego;

c) 

ocenę tego, czy podmiot finansowy podjął działania w celu skorygowania lub udoskonalenia tych środków w razie potrzeby.
EULAW Artykuł 27 Format i treść sprawozdania z przeglądu ram zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT
-
EULAW Artykuł 28 Zarządzanie i organizacja
-
EULAW Artykuł 31 Zarządzanie ryzykiem związanym z ICT
-
EULAW Artykuł 6 Ramy zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT
-
EULAW Artykuł 11 Reagowanie i przywracania sprawności
-
EULAW Artykuł 32 Bezpieczeństwo przetwarzania
-
EULAW Artykuł 21 Środki zarządzania ryzykiem w cyberbezpieczeństwie
-
EULAW Artykuł 6 Ramy zarządzania ryzykiem związanym z ICT
-
EULAW Artykuł 11 Reagowanie i przywracania sprawności
-
EULAW Artykuł 32 Bezpieczeństwo przetwarzania
-
EULAW Artykuł 21 Środki zarządzania ryzykiem w cyberbezpieczeństwie
-
EULAW Article 6 1

1.   Financial entities shall have a sound, comprehensive and well-documented ICT risk management framework as part of their overall risk management system, which enables them to address ICT risk quickly, efficiently and comprehensively and to ensure a high level of digital operational resilience.
EULAW Article 6 2

2.   The ICT risk management framework shall include at least strategies, policies, procedures, ICT protocols and tools that are necessary to duly and adequately protect all information assets and ICT assets, including computer software, hardware, servers, as well as to protect all relevant physical components and infrastructures, such as premises, data centres and sensitive designated areas, to ensure that all information assets and ICT assets are adequately protected from risks including damage and unauthorised access or usage.
EULAW Article 6 3

3.   In accordance with their ICT risk management framework, financial entities shall minimise the impact of ICT risk by deploying appropriate strategies, policies, procedures, ICT protocols and tools. They shall provide complete and updated information on ICT risk and on their ICT risk management framework to the competent authorities upon their request.
EULAW Article 6 4

4.   Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall assign the responsibility for managing and overseeing ICT risk to a control function and ensure an appropriate level of independence of such control function in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Financial entities shall ensure appropriate segregation and independence of ICT risk management functions, control functions, and internal audit functions, according to the three lines of defence model, or an internal risk management and control model.
EULAW Article 6 5

5.   The ICT risk management framework shall be documented and reviewed at least once a year, or periodically in the case of microenterprises, as well as upon the occurrence of major ICT-related incidents, and following supervisory instructions or conclusions derived from relevant digital operational resilience testing or audit processes. It shall be continuously improved on the basis of lessons derived from implementation and monitoring. A report on the review of the ICT risk management framework shall be submitted to the competent authority upon its request.
EULAW Article 6 6

6.   The ICT risk management framework of financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall be subject to internal audit by auditors on a regular basis in line with the financial entities’ audit plan. Those auditors shall possess sufficient knowledge, skills and expertise in ICT risk, as well as appropriate independence. The frequency and focus of ICT audits shall be commensurate to the ICT risk of the financial entity.
EULAW Article 6 7

7.   Based on the conclusions from the internal audit review, financial entities shall establish a formal follow-up process, including rules for the timely verification and remediation of critical ICT audit findings.
EULAW Article 6 8

8.   The ICT risk management framework shall include a digital operational resilience strategy setting out how the framework shall be implemented. To that end, the digital operational resilience strategy shall include methods to address ICT risk and attain specific ICT objectives, by:

(a)

explaining how the ICT risk management framework supports the financial entity’s business strategy and objectives;

(b)

establishing the risk tolerance level for ICT risk, in accordance with the risk appetite of the financial entity, and analysing the impact tolerance for ICT disruptions;

(c)

setting out clear information security objectives, including key performance indicators and key risk metrics;

(d)

explaining the ICT reference architecture and any changes needed to reach specific business objectives;

(e)

outlining the different mechanisms put in place to detect ICT-related incidents, prevent their impact and provide protection from it;

(f)

evidencing the current digital operational resilience situation on the basis of the number of major ICT-related incidents reported and the effectiveness of preventive measures;

(g)

implementing digital operational resilience testing, in accordance with Chapter IV of this Regulation;

(h)

outlining a communication strategy in the event of ICT-related incidents the disclosure of which is required in accordance with Article 14.
EULAW Article 6 9

9.   Financial entities may, in the context of the digital operational resilience strategy referred to in paragraph 8, define a holistic ICT multi-vendor strategy, at group or entity level, showing key dependencies on ICT third-party service providers and explaining the rationale behind the procurement mix of ICT third-party service providers.
EULAW Article 6 10

10.   Financial entities may, in accordance with Union and national sectoral law, outsource the tasks of verifying compliance with ICT risk management requirements to intra-group or external undertakings. In case of such outsourcing, the financial entity remains fully responsible for the verification of compliance with the ICT risk management requirements.
EULAW Article 11 6

6.   As part of their comprehensive ICT risk management, financial entities shall:

(a)

test the ICT business continuity plans and the ICT response and recovery plans in relation to ICT systems supporting all functions at least yearly, as well as in the event of any substantive changes to ICT systems supporting critical or important functions;

(b)

test the crisis communication plans established in accordance with Article 14.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall include in the testing plans scenarios of cyber-attacks and switchovers between the primary ICT infrastructure and the redundant capacity, backups and redundant facilities necessary to meet the obligations set out in Article 12.

Financial entities shall regularly review their ICT business continuity policy and ICT response and recovery plans, taking into account the results of tests carried out in accordance with the first subparagraph and recommendations stemming from audit checks or supervisory reviews.

Powiązane zgłoszenia

Powiązania
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
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 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 Govern
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 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 OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.03B
blocks OIS-08.01AC
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 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 OIS-04.01B
blocks OIS-07.01B
blocks OIS-08.03B
blocks OIS-08.01AC
is blocked by RSK-02 Risk Management Program – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-09 Risk Management Strategy
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks RA-01 Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [L] Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [M] Policy and Procedures
blocks RA-01 [H] Policy and Procedures
blocks PM-09 [P] Risk Management Strategy
blocks RA-01 [P] Policy and Procedures
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks 03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV GOVERN
blocks GV.RM Risk Management Strategy
blocks GV.RM-01 Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
blocks GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
blocks GV.RM-04 Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated
blocks GV.RM-06 A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
blocks GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
blocks GV.OV-02 The cybersecurity risk management strategy is reviewed and adjusted to ensure coverage of organizational requirements and risks
blocks GV.OV-03 Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
blocks PR.IR Technology Infrastructure Resilience
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.