+Artykuł 13 Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

Artykuł 13 Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

Artykuł 13

Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

Przy wprowadzaniu zabezpieczeń zapewniających ochronę sieci przed włamaniami i wykorzystaniem danych niezgodnie z przeznaczeniem podmioty finansowe opracowują, dokumentują i wdrażają polityki, procedury, protokoły i narzędzia w zakresie zarządzania bezpieczeństwem sieci obejmujące wszystkie następujące elementy:

segregację i segmentację systemów i sieci ICT z uwzględnieniem:

(i)

krytyczności lub istotności funkcji, którą te systemy i sieci ICT wspierają;

(ii)

klasyfikacji ustanowionej zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554;

(iii)

ogólnego profilu ryzyka związanego z zasobami ICT wykorzystującymi te systemy i sieci ICT;

dokumentację wszystkich połączeń sieciowych i przepływów danych podmiotu finansowego;

wykorzystanie odrębnej i wyspecjalizowanej sieci do administrowania zasobami ICT;

określenie i wdrożenie kontroli dostępu do sieci w celu zapobiegania podłączaniu do sieci podmiotu finansowego za pomocą jakiegokolwiek nieuprawnionego urządzenia lub systemu lub jakiegokolwiek punktu końcowego niespełniającego wymogów bezpieczeństwa podmiotu finansowego oraz wykrywania takich przypadków;

szyfrowanie połączeń sieciowych przechodzących przez sieci korporacyjne, sieci publiczne, sieci krajowe, sieci podmiotów zewnętrznych i sieci bezprzewodowe do celów wykorzystywanych protokołów komunikacyjnych, z uwzględnieniem wyników zatwierdzonej klasyfikacji danych, wyników oceny ryzyka związanego z ICT oraz szyfrowania połączeń sieciowych, o których mowa w art. 6 ust. 2;

projektowanie sieci zgodnie z wymogami bezpieczeństwa ICT ustanowionymi przez podmiot finansowy, z uwzględnieniem wiodących praktyk w celu zapewnienia poufności, integralności i dostępności sieci;

zabezpieczenie ruchu w sieci między sieciami wewnętrznymi a internetem i innymi połączeniami zewnętrznymi;

określenie ról i obowiązków oraz etapów specyfikacji, wdrożenia, zatwierdzenia, zmiany i przeglądu reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń;

przeprowadzanie przeglądów architektury sieci i struktury bezpieczeństwa sieci raz w roku, a w przypadku mikroprzedsiębiorstw – okresowo, w celu zidentyfikowania potencjalnych podatności;

środki tymczasowego izolowania, w razie potrzeby, podsieci oraz elementów i urządzeń sieci;

wdrożenie bezpiecznego poziomu bazowego konfiguracji wszystkich elementów sieci oraz umacnianie sieci i urządzeń sieciowych zgodnie z wszelkimi instrukcjami dostawcy, w stosownych przypadkach, normami w rozumieniu art. 2 pkt 1 rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1025/2012 oraz wiodącymi praktykami;

procedury ograniczania, blokowania i zamykania systemu oraz sesji zdalnych po upływie określonego okresu braku aktywności;

w odniesieniu do umów o świadczenie usług sieciowych:

(i)

identyfikację i specyfikację środków bezpieczeństwa ICT i informacji, poziomów usług i wymogów w zakresie zarządzania w odniesieniu do wszystkich usług sieciowych;

(ii)

wskazanie, czy usługi te są świadczone przez dostawcę usług ICT wewnątrz grupy czy przez zewnętrznych dostawców usług ICT.

Do celów lit. h) podmioty finansowe regularnie przeprowadzają przegląd reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń zgodnie z klasyfikacją ustanowioną zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (UE) 2022/2554 oraz ogólnym profilem ryzyka odpowiednich systemów ICT. W przypadku systemów ICT, które wspierają krytyczne lub istotne funkcje, podmioty finansowe weryfikują adekwatność obowiązujących reguł zapory sieciowej i filtrów połączeń co najmniej raz na sześć miesięcy.

1. Przegląd

Tytuł	Regulacja

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane normy

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania
Źródło	Wymaganie

3. Powiązane normy

Normy
Źródło	Wymaganie
SCF	Network Diagrams & Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) Description Mechanisms exist to maintain network architecture diagrams that: (1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture; (2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and (3) Document all sensitive and/or regulated data flows. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD) ∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD) ∙ draw.io (free, https://draw.io) or Microsoft Visio Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD) ∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD) ∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD) ∙ draw.io (free) or Microsoft Visio Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD) ∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD) ∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD) ∙ LucidChart (https://lucidchart.com) or Microsoft Visio ∙ Network documentation tool (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD) ∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD) ∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD) ∙ Network topology tool (e.g., SolarWinds Network Topology Mapper, NetBox) ∙ Automated network diagram updates via discovery tools Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ High-Level Diagram (HLD) ∙ Low-Level Diagram (LLD) ∙ Data Flow Diagram (DFD) ∙ Enterprise network documentation platform (e.g., NetBox, SolarWinds NTM) ∙ Automated network discovery and diagram generation ∙ Diagrams integrated with CMDB and change management SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Asset Management (AST) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with process owners to generate and maintain Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) and network diagrams to document the flow of data to create and maintain a map of systems where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted or processed. Level 3 Well Defined Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain network architecture diagrams that: (1) Contain sufficient detail to assess the security of the network's architecture; (2) Reflect the current architecture of the network environment; and (3) Document all sensitive/regulated data flows. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Asset Management (AST) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously Improving Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF	Secure Baseline Configurations Description Mechanisms exist to develop, document and maintain secure baseline configurations for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are consistent with industry-accepted hardening standards. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) Secure Technology Implementation Guides (STIGs) ∙ Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks ∙ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) security guides ∙ CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak) ∙ Netwrix Auditor (https://netrix.com) SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally Configuration Management (CFG) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CFG domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Configuration management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Configurations mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). Level 2 Planned Tracked Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Configuration management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Configuration 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 Baseline Configurations (SBC) are used to configure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) according to the principles of least functionality and least privilege, mostly conforming to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides). ▪ The restrictiveness of the SBCs are commensurate with the criticality of the TAAS and/or sensitivity of the data being protected, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and frameworks. ▪ Tailored SBC are created for higher-risk operating environments and/or for TAAS that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data. Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 develop, document and maintain secure baseline configurations for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are consistent with industry-accepted system hardening standards. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Configuration Management (CFG) 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 Configuration Management (CFG) 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.
SCF	Session Lock Description Mechanisms exist to initiate a session lock after an organization-defined time period of inactivity, or upon receiving a request from a user and retain the session lock until the user reestablishes access using established identification and authentication methods. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) 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 Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. Level 2 Planned Tracked Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS. Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 initiate a session lock after an organization-defined time period of inactivity, or upon receiving a request from a user and retain the session lock until the user reestablishes access using established identification and authentication methods. 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	Session Termination Description Automated mechanisms exist to log out users, both locally on the network and for remote sessions, at the end of the session or after an organization-defined period of inactivity. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) 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 Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. Level 2 Planned Tracked Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS. Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 automatically log out users, both locally on the network and for remote sessions, at the end of the session or after an organization-defined period of inactivity. 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	Wireless Access Authentication & Encryption Description Mechanisms exist to protect the confidentiality and integrity of wireless networking technologies by implementing authentication and strong encryption. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Wi-Fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Wi-Fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Wi-Fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Wi-Fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Wi-Fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3) 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 Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Cryptography 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 provide an encryption solution (software or hardware) for the storage of sensitive/regulated data. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards. ▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography 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 implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. Level 3 Well Defined Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CFG 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 protect the confidentiality and integrity of wireless networking technologies by implementing authentication and strong encryption. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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	Encrypting Data In Transit Description Cryptographic mechanisms exist to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of data in transit. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Transport Layer Security (TLS) ∙ IPSec encryption ∙ Encrypted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Transport Layer Security (TLS) ∙ IPSec encryption ∙ Encrypted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Transport Layer Security (TLS) ∙ IPSec encryption ∙ Encrypted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Transport Layer Security (TLS) ∙ IPSec encryption ∙ Encrypted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) (https://csrc.nist.gov) ∙ Transport Layer Security (TLS) ∙ IPSec encryption ∙ Encrypted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 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 Cryptographic Protections (CRY) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CRY domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Cryptography 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 provide an encryption solution (software or hardware) for the storage of sensitive/regulated data. ▪ Sensitive/regulated data is encrypted in transit according to standardized processes. Level 2 Planned Tracked Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Cryptographic management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Cryptographic management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards. ▪ External compliance requirements for cryptography 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 implement cryptographic mechanisms that are applicability for statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. ▪ Sensitive/regulated data is encrypted at rest using cryptographic protections that are commensurate with the sensitivity of the data. ▪ Sensitive/regulated data is encrypted during transmission using cryptographic protections that are commensurate with the sensitivity of the data. Level 3 Well Defined Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management 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 CRY 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 cryptographic capability exists to protect the confidentiality of data being transmitted. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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	Identification & Authentication for Devices Description Mechanisms exist to uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) devices before establishing a connection using bidirectional authentication that is cryptographically- based and replay resistant. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com) ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS. Level 3 Well Defined Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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 IAC 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 IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC 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 uniquely identify and centrally Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) devices before establishing a connection using bidirectional authentication that is cryptographically- based and replay resistant. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Identification & Authentication (IAC) 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	Control Validation Testing (CVT) Description Mechanisms exist to formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT) ∙ Information Assurance (IA) program ∙ VisibleOps security management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT) ∙ Information Assurance (IA) program ∙ VisibleOps security management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Controls Validation Testing (CVT) ∙ Information Assurance (IA) program ∙ VisibleOps security management SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally Information Assurance (IAO) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAO domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Pre-production security testing-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 implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data protection control testing. 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. ▪ IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel coordinate IAP activities with affected stakeholders before conducting such activities in order to reduce the potential impact on operations. ▪ IAP testing results in a formal risk assessment where Business process owners (BPOs) are required to make a decision to (1) reduce, (2) avoid, (3) transfer and/or (4) accept risk(s) on behalf of the organization. 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 formally assess the security, compliance and resilience controls in Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) through Information Assurance Program (IAP) activities to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting expected requirements. 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	Network Security Controls (NSC) Description Mechanisms exist to develop, govern & update procedures to facilitate the implementation of Network Security Controls (NSC). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Basic firewall (home router or free pfSense) ∙ Network security policy Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Small business firewall (e.g., Cisco Meraki, Fortinet FortiGate) ∙ Network security policy Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Next-gen firewall (NGFW) ∙ Network segmentation ∙ IDS/IPS ∙ Network security standards Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise NGFW (e.g., Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet) ∙ Network security program ∙ IDS/IPS ∙ NAC Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise NGFW with threat intelligence feeds ∙ Zero-trust network architecture ∙ SIEM integration ∙ NAC ∙ SD-WAN 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls and routers) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception). ▪ Administrative processes enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis. ▪ Internet-facing technologies are governed no differently from internal network assets. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). ▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop, govern & update procedures to facilitate the implementation of Network Security Controls (NSC). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Boundary Protection Description Mechanisms exist to monitor and control communications at the external network boundary and at key internal boundaries within the network. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Firewall as boundary protection device Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Business-grade firewall (e.g., Cisco Meraki, pfSense) ∙ DMZ for public-facing services Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ NGFW boundary protection ∙ DMZ architecture ∙ IDS/IPS at perimeter Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise NGFW with IPS ∙ DMZ design ∙ Network segmentation ∙ Perimeter monitoring Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise perimeter security ∙ NGFW, IPS, DMZ ∙ Zero-trust perimeter ∙ Continuous boundary 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ SBC enforce network activity monitoring and control communications at the external network boundary and at key internal boundaries within the network. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to monitor and control communications at the external network boundary and at key internal boundaries within the network. 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	Data Flow Enforcement – Access Control Lists (ACLs) Description Mechanisms exist to implement and govern Access Control Lists (ACLs) to provide data flow enforcement that explicitly restrict network traffic to only what is authorized. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Access Control Lists (ACLs) 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Administrative processes enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement and govern Access Control Lists (ACLs) to provide data flow enforcement that explicitly restrict network traffic to only what is authorized. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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 Network Security (NET) 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.
SCF	Human Reviews Description Mechanisms exist to enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Human review of flagged data transfers Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Policy requiring human review of sensitive data transfers Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Human review process for cross-boundary data transfers ∙ DLP alert review procedures Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ DLP alert triage workflow with human review ∙ Dedicated review team Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise DLP with human review workflow (SOC integration) ∙ SOAR-assisted triage ∙ 24/7 human review for critical transfers 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce the use of human reviews for Access Control Lists (ACLs) and similar rulesets on a routine basis. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs) Description Mechanisms exist to authorize connections from systems to other systems using Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs), or similar methods, that document, for each interconnection: (1) Interface characteristics; (2) Security, compliance and resilience requirements; and; (3) The nature of the information communicated. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) ∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA) ∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) ∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA) ∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) ∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA) ∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) ∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA) ∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) ∙ Information Exchange Security Agreements (IESA) ∙ Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) / Agreement (MOA) 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to authorize connections from systems to other systems using Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs), or similar methods, that document, for each interconnection: (1) Interface characteristics; (2) Security, compliance and resilience requirements; and; (3) The nature of the information communicated. 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	Network Segmentation (macrosegmentation) Description Mechanisms exist to implement network segmentation within network architectures to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) from other network resources. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Subnetting ∙ Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Subnetting ∙ Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Subnetting ∙ Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Subnetting ∙ Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Subnetting ∙ Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network segmentation exists to implement separate network addresses (e.g., different subnets) to connect TAASD in different security domains (e.g., sensitive/regulated data environments). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity architects maintain a segmented development network to ensure a secure development environment. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure network architecture utilizes network segmentation to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to protect from other network resources. Mechanisms exist to implement network segmentation within network architectures to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) from other network resources. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Security Management Subnets Description Mechanisms exist to implement security management subnets to isolate security tools and support components from other internal system components by implementing separate subnetworks with managed interfaces to other components of the system. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Separate VLAN or network for management interfaces of firewall/switches where supported Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Dedicated management VLAN for security tools and infrastructure devices Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Separate management network or VLAN for security management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Dedicated security management subnet ∙ Out-of-band management access controls Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise out-of-band management network ∙ Dedicated jump servers ∙ Privileged access workstations (PAW) 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Processing and storage of service location, including a managed security zone to house cybersecurity and data protection tools. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement security management subnets to isolate security tools and support components from other internal system components by implementing separate subnetworks with managed interfaces to other components of the system. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Network Access Control (NAC) Description Automated mechanisms exist to employ Network Access Control (NAC), or a similar technology, which is capable of detecting unauthorized devices and disable network access to those unauthorized devices. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ VLAN segmentation to isolate unknown devices ∙ Basic wireless network access controls Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ VLAN segmentation to isolate unknown devices ∙ MAC address filtering (basic NAC) ∙ Wireless access point policies Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com) ∙ HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com) ∙ Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net) ∙ Open-source NAC (e.g., PacketFence) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com) ∙ HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com) ∙ Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net) ∙ 802.1X certificate-based authentication Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) (https://cisco.com) ∙ HPE Aruba Central (https://arubanetworks.com) ∙ Juniper Mist Access Assurance (https://juniper.net) ∙ Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) integration ∙ 802.1X with EAP-TLS and certificate infrastructure 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically employ Network Access Control (NAC), or a similar technology, which is capable of detecting unauthorized devices and disable network access to those unauthorized devices. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Asset Management (AST) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities. Level 5 Continuously Improving Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF	Remote Access Endpoint Security Validation Description Automated mechanisms exist to validate the security posture of the endpoint devices (e.g., software versions and patch levels) prior to allowing devices to connect to organizational Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com) ∙ AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com) SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically validate the security posture of the endpoint devices (e.g., software versions and patch levels) prior to allowing devices to connect to organizational Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Network Connection Termination Description Mechanisms exist to terminate network connections at the end of a session or after an organization-defined time period of inactivity. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Configure session timeouts on systems and applications Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Session timeout policy ∙ Configure timeouts on all key systems Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal network session termination policy ∙ Automated session timeout enforcement Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise session management controls ∙ Automated disconnect for idle sessions ∙ Network access control enforcement Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise session management platform ∙ Automated session termination via NAC/IAM ∙ Zero-trust continuous session validation 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ SBC enforce network connection terminations at the end of a session or after an entity-defined time period of inactivity. ▪ SBC terminate remote sessions at the end of the session or after an entity-defined time period of inactivity. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to terminate network connections at the end of a session or after an organization-defined time period of inactivity. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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 Network Security (NET) 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.
SCF	Safeguarding Data Over Open Networks Description Cryptographic mechanisms exist to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive and/or regulated data during transmission over open, public networks. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Use HTTPS/TLS for all internet-facing communications Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ TLS for all internet traffic ∙ No unencrypted protocols over public networks Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Encryption-in-transit standards ∙ TLS 1.2+ enforcement ∙ Certificate management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise encryption-in-transit program ∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement ∙ Certificate lifecycle management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise encryption governance program ∙ TLS 1.3+ ∙ Certificate management platform (e.g., Venafi) ∙ Automated certificate 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). ▪ Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption. Level 2 Planned Tracked Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data use a cryptographic mechanism to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS and VPN). Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational cryptographic capability exists to implement strong cryptography and security protocols to safeguard sensitive/regulated data during transmission over open, public networks. 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	Isolation of System Components Description Mechanisms exist to employ boundary protections to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that support critical missions and/or business functions. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Use VLANs or separate physical networks for sensitive systems Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ VLAN segmentation for critical systems ∙ Network isolation policy Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Network segmentation with VLANs ∙ Isolated segments for sensitive systems ∙ Inter-VLAN firewall rules Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise network segmentation program ∙ Microsegmentation for sensitive workloads ∙ SDN-based isolation Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise microsegmentation platform (e.g., Illumio, VMware NSX) ∙ Zero-trust workload isolation ∙ Automated policy enforcement 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to employ boundary protections to isolate Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that support critical missions and/or business functions. 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	Dynamic Isolation & Segregation (Sandboxing) Description Automated mechanisms exist to dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Use sandbox environment for testing suspicious files/code Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Sandbox analysis tool (e.g., Any.run, free tiers) ∙ Isolation policy for suspicious activity Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Dynamic sandboxing solution (e.g., Cuckoo Sandbox) ∙ Network isolation for suspected threats Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise sandbox platform (e.g., Palo Alto WildFire, Cisco Threat Grid) ∙ Automated isolation workflows Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise sandboxing and dynamic isolation platform ∙ Automated containment via SOAR ∙ Network quarantine capabilities 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 Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically dynamically isolate (e.g., sandbox) untrusted components during runtime, where the component is isolated in a fault-contained environment but it can still collaborate with the application. 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	Host Containment Description Automated mechanisms exist to enforce host containment protections that revoke or quarantine a host's access to the network. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Isolate suspected compromised systems from the network immediately Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Host isolation procedure for incident response ∙ Documented steps to isolate compromised hosts Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Formal host containment policy and procedure ∙ EDR-based isolation capability Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ EDR with automated host isolation (e.g., CrowdStrike, SentinelOne) ∙ IR playbook for containment Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise EDR/XDR with automated host containment ∙ SOAR-orchestrated isolation workflows SCR-CMM Level 0 Not Performed Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed. Level 1 Performed Informally SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality. Level 2 Planned Tracked SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts). Level 3 Well Defined Network Security (NET) 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 NET 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 NET domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A network security management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of network security operations (e.g., network management solution and log aggregator). ▪ 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 NET 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically enforce host containment protections that revoke or quarantine a host's access to the network. 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	Alignment With Enterprise Architecture Description Mechanisms exist to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for security, compliance and resilience principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Follow secure coding basics ∙ Document security decisions Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Secure design checklist ∙ Basic threat modeling Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Enterprise architecture 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering management operations (e.g., project management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for security, compliance and resilience principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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	Secure Engineering Principles Description Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of industry-recognized security, compliance and resilience practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) 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 Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SEA domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security engineering-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 design, build and maintain secure, compliant and resilient solutions. Level 2 Planned Tracked Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manage separate development, testing and operational environments to reduce the risks of unauthorized access or changes to the operational environment and to ensure no impact to production TAASD. Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering management operations (e.g., project management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of industry-recognized security, compliance and resilience practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of TAAS. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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	Defense-In-Depth (DiD) Architecture Description Mechanisms exist to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture committee Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Defined "secure engineering principles" (e.g., alignment with NIST 800-160) ∙ Defense-in-depth (DiD) architecture ∙ Enterprise architecture 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 Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Administrative processes are used to configure boundary devices (e.g., firewalls and routers) to deny network traffic by default and allow network traffic by exception (e.g., deny all and permit by exception). Level 2 Planned Tracked Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel manage separate development, testing and operational environments to reduce the risks of unauthorized access or changes to the operational environment and to ensure no impact to production TAASD. Level 3 Well Defined Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A cybersecurity engineering / architecture 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 secure engineering management operations (e.g., project management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with SEA 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). ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the secure engineering principles on all applicable Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement security functions as a layered structure minimizing interactions between layers of the design and avoiding any dependence by lower layers on the functionality or correctness of higher layers. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Network Security (NET) 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	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with TPM 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 require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.

Builddate: 25.06.2024 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32024R1774
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

Artykuł 13 Zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem sieci

1. Przegląd

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane normy

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

3. Powiązane normy

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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