+Defined Roles & Responsibilities
---+Assigned Roles & Responsibilities Awareness
|
Defined Roles & Responsibilities
Description
Mechanisms exist to define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ NIST NICE cybersecurity workforce framework alignment ∙ Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed (RASCI) matrix
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
Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ Formal roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity and/or data protection are not consistent and/or standardized.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 define cybersecurity roles & responsibilities for all personnel.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Human Resources Security (HRS) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Visão geral
| Título |
Norma |
|
Assigned Roles & Responsibilities Awareness
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to communicate with users about their roles and responsibilities to maintain a safe and secure working environment.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Formal onboarding training ∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Formal onboarding training ∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal onboarding training ∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal onboarding training ∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Formal onboarding training ∙ Acceptable Use / Rules of Behavior (RoB)
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
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.
Level 3 Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software 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 HRS 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 communicate with users about their roles and responsibilities to maintain a safe and secure working environment.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Human Resources Security (HRS) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referências
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulamentos relacionados
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regulamentos relacionados
Regulamentos
| Fonte |
Regulamentação |
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 2.o Elementos gerais das políticas, procedimentos, protocolos e ferramentas de segurança no domínio das TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 15.o Gestão dos projetos de TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 17.o Gestão das alterações das TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 19.o Política de recursos humanos
Artigo 19.o
Política de recursos humanos
As entidades financeiras devem incluir na sua política de recursos humanos ou noutras políticas relevantes todos os elementos seguintes relacionados com a segurança das TIC:
a)
A identificação e atribuição de quaisquer responsabilidades específicas em matéria de segurança das TIC;
b)
Os requisitos aplicáveis aos membros do pessoal da entidade financeira e dos terceiros prestadores de serviços de TIC que utilizam ou acedem a ativos de TIC da entidade financeira para:
i)
estarem informados e aderirem às políticas, procedimentos e protocolos de segurança das TIC da entidade financeira,
ii)
terem conhecimento dos canais de comunicação criados pela entidade financeira para a deteção de comportamentos anómalos, incluindo, se for caso disso, os canais de comunicação estabelecidos em conformidade com a Diretiva (UE) 2019/1937 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho (
1
),
iii)
no que toca aos membros do pessoal, devolverem à entidade financeira, após a cessação do contrato de trabalho, todos os ativos de TIC e ativos de informação tangíveis na sua posse que pertençam à entidade financeira.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 21.o Controlo do acesso
Artigo 21.o
No âmbito do seu controlo da gestão dos direitos de acesso, as entidades financeiras devem desenvolver, documentar e aplicar uma política que contenha todos os elementos seguintes:
a)
A atribuição de direitos de acesso a ativos de TIC com base nos princípios da necessidade de tomar conhecimento, da necessidade de utilizar e do menor privilégio, nomeadamente para o acesso à distância e de emergência;
b)
A segregação de funções destinada a impedir o acesso injustificado a dados críticos ou impedir a atribuição de combinações de direitos de acesso que possam ser utilizadas para contornar os controlos;
c)
Uma disposição sobre a responsabilização dos utilizadores, limitando, na medida do possível, a utilização de contas de utilizador genéricas e partilhadas e assegurando que os utilizadores sejam sempre identificáveis nas ações realizadas nos sistemas de TIC;
d)
Uma disposição em matéria de restrições de acesso a ativos de TIC, estabelecendo controlos e ferramentas para impedir o acesso não autorizado;
e)
Procedimentos de gestão das contas para conceder, alterar ou revogar direitos de acesso a contas de utilizador e a contas genéricas, nomeadamente contas de administrador genéricas, incluindo disposições relativas a todos os aspetos seguintes:
i)
atribuição de funções e responsabilidades para a concessão, revisão e revogação de direitos de acesso,
ii)
atribuição de acesso privilegiado, de emergência e de administrador com base na necessidade de utilização ou numa base ad hoc para todos os sistemas de TIC,
iii)
retirada dos direitos de acesso sem demora injustificada após a cessação do contrato de trabalho ou quando o acesso deixar de ser necessário,
iv)
atualização dos direitos de acesso sempre que sejam necessárias alterações e, pelo menos, uma vez por ano para todos os sistemas de TIC que não sejam sistemas de TIC que apoiem funções críticas ou importantes, e pelo menos a cada seis meses para os sistemas de TIC que apoiem funções críticas ou importantes;
f)
Métodos de autenticação, incluindo todos os elementos seguintes:
i)
a utilização de métodos de autenticação proporcionados à classificação estabelecida em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 1, do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554 e ao perfil de risco global dos ativos de TIC e tendo em conta as melhores práticas,
ii)
a utilização de métodos de autenticação forte em conformidade com as melhores práticas e técnicas para o acesso remoto à rede da entidade financeira, para o acesso privilegiado e ainda para o acesso a ativos de TIC que apoiem funções críticas ou importantes ou ativos de TIC acessíveis ao público;
g)
Medidas de controlo do acesso físico, nomeadamente:
i)
a identificação e o registo de pessoas singulares autorizadas a aceder a instalações, centros de dados e áreas consideradas sensíveis identificadas pela entidade financeira onde se encontrem os ativos de TIC e de informação,
ii)
a concessão de direitos de acesso físico a ativos de TIC críticos apenas a pessoas autorizadas, de acordo com os princípios da necessidade de tomar conhecimento e do menor privilégio, e numa base ad hoc,
iii)
a monitorização do acesso físico a instalações, centros de dados e áreas consideradas sensíveis identificadas pela entidade financeira onde se encontrem os ativos de TIC e de informação ou ambos,
iv)
a revisão dos direitos de acesso físico, a fim de assegurar que os direitos de acesso desnecessários são imediatamente revogados.
Para efeitos da alínea e), subalínea i), as entidades financeiras devem estabelecer o período de conservação, tendo em conta os objetivos empresariais e de segurança da informação, o motivo para registar o evento nos registos e os resultados da avaliação do risco associado às TIC.
Para efeitos da alínea e), subalínea ii), as entidades financeiras devem utilizar, sempre que possível, contas específicas para a execução de tarefas administrativas relativas aos sistemas de TIC. Sempre que possível e adequado, as entidades financeiras devem utilizar soluções automatizadas para a gestão do acesso privilegiado.
Para efeitos da alínea g), subalínea i), a identificação e o registo devem ser proporcionados à importância das instalações, dos centros de dados e das áreas consideradas sensíveis e ao caráter crítico das operações ou dos sistemas de TIC aí localizados.
Para efeitos da alínea g), subalínea iii), a monitorização deve ser proporcionada à classificação estabelecida em conformidade com o artigo 8.o, n.o 1, do Regulamento (UE) 2022/2554 e ao caráter crítico da área acedida.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 23.o Deteção de atividades anómalas e critérios para a deteção e resposta a incidentes relacionados com as TIC
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 28.o Governação e organização
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 5.o Governação e organização
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artigo 32.o Segurança do tratamento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 5 2
2. The management body of the financial entity shall define, approve, oversee and be responsible for the implementation of all arrangements related to the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1).
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the management body shall:
|
(a)
|
bear the ultimate responsibility for managing the financial entity’s ICT risk;
|
|
(b)
|
put in place policies that aim to ensure the maintenance of high standards of availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality, of data;
|
|
(c)
|
set clear roles and responsibilities for all ICT-related functions and establish appropriate governance arrangements to ensure effective and timely communication, cooperation and coordination among those functions;
|
|
(d)
|
bear the overall responsibility for setting and approving the digital operational resilience strategy as referred to in Article 6(8), including the determination of the appropriate risk tolerance level of ICT risk of the financial entity, as referred to in Article 6(8), point (b);
|
|
(e)
|
approve, oversee and periodically review the implementation of the financial entity’s ICT business continuity policy and ICT response and recovery plans, referred to, respectively, in Article 11(1) and (3), which may be adopted as a dedicated specific policy forming an integral part of the financial entity’s overall business continuity policy and response and recovery plan;
|
|
(f)
|
approve and periodically review the financial entity’s ICT internal audit plans, ICT audits and material modifications to them;
|
|
(g)
|
allocate and periodically review the appropriate budget to fulfil the financial entity’s digital operational resilience needs in respect of all types of resources, including relevant ICT security awareness programmes and digital operational resilience training referred to in Article 13(6), and ICT skills for all staff;
|
|
(h)
|
approve and periodically review the financial entity’s policy on arrangements regarding the use of ICT services provided by ICT third-party service providers;
|
|
(i)
|
put in place, at corporate level, reporting channels enabling it to be duly informed of the following:
|
(i)
|
arrangements concluded with ICT third-party service providers on the use of ICT services,
|
|
(ii)
|
any relevant planned material changes regarding the ICT third-party service providers,
|
|
(iii)
|
the potential impact of such changes on the critical or important functions subject to those arrangements, including a risk analysis summary to assess the impact of those changes, and at least major ICT-related incidents and their impact, as well as response, recovery and corrective measures.
|
|
|
Pedidos ligados
Ligações
| Tipo de ligação |
Pedido |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
People |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Access |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities |
|
blocks
|
System / Service Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of internal controls |
|
blocks
|
Lack of oversight of third-party controls |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
blocks
|
Lack of a security-minded workforce |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
SP-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-10.01B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-32.03B |
|
is blocked by
|
HRS-04 Defined Roles & Responsibilities – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
PM-13 Security and Privacy Workforce |
|
blocks
|
PS-09 Position Descriptions |
|
blocks
|
PS-09 [L] Position Descriptions |
|
blocks
|
PS-09 [M] Position Descriptions |
|
blocks
|
PS-09 [H] Position Descriptions |
|
blocks
|
PM-13 [P] Security and Privacy Workforce |
|
blocks
|
03.01.22 Publicly Accessible Content |
|
blocks
|
03.02.02 Role-Based Training |
|
blocks
|
03.06.04 Incident Response Training |
|
blocks
|
03.06.05 Incident Response Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.07.06 Maintenance Personnel |
|
blocks
|
03.08.02 Media Access |
|
blocks
|
03.15.03 Rules of Behavior |
|
blocks
|
03.16.03 External System Services |
|
blocks
|
03.01.08E Account Monitoring for Atypical Usage |
|
blocks
|
03.01.11E Role-Based Access Control |
|
blocks
|
03.14.17E System-Generated Alerts |
|
blocks
|
03.14.18E Automated Organization-Generated Alerts |
|
blocks
|
03.17.03E Component Authenticity |
|
blocks
|
GV.RM-05 Lines of communication across the organization are established for cybersecurity risks, including risks from suppliers and other third parties |
|
blocks
|
GV.RR Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities |
|
blocks
|
GV.RR-02 Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced |
|
blocks
|
ID.AM Asset Management |
|
blocks
|
PO.2 Implement Roles and Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
PO.2.1 Create new roles and alter responsibilities for existing roles as needed to encompass all parts of the SDLC. Periodically review and maintain the … |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|