+Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
---+AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Description

Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1. Prezentare generală

AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Description

Mechanisms exist to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

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

Level 1 Performed Informally

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

Level 2 Planned Tracked

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

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

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

Level 5 Continuously Improving

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

1.1 Referințe

1.2 Cerințe identificate

1.3 Reglementări asociate

2. Cerințe identificate

Cerințe

3. Reglementări asociate

Reglementări
EULAW Articolul 17 Sistemul de management al calității
EULAW Articolul 28 Principii generale
EULAW Articolul 21 Măsuri de gestionare a riscurilor în materie de securitate cibernetică
EULAW Articolul 28 Principii generale
EULAW Articolul 21 Măsuri de gestionare a riscurilor în materie de securitate cibernetică
EULAW Articolul 28 (1)

Entitățile financiare gestionează riscurile TIC generate de părți terțe ca parte integrantă a riscurilor TIC în cadrul lor de gestionare a riscurilor TIC astfel cum este menționat la articolul 6 alineatul (1) și în conformitate cu următoarele principii:

(a) 

entitățile financiare care au instituit acorduri contractuale pentru utilizarea serviciilor TIC în scopul desfășurării operațiunilor lor rămân în orice moment pe deplin responsabile de respectarea și de îndeplinirea tuturor obligațiilor care decurg din prezentul regulament și din dreptul aplicabil în domeniul serviciilor financiare;

(b) 

gestionarea de către entitățile financiare a riscurilor TIC generate de părți terțe este pusă în aplicare din perspectiva principiului proporționalității, luând în considerare:

(i) 

natura, amploarea, complexitatea și importanța dependențelor legate de TIC;

(ii) 

riscurile care decurg din acordurile contractuale privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC încheiate cu furnizori terți de servicii TIC, ținând seama de caracterul critic sau importanța serviciului, procesului sau funcției respective, precum și de impactul potențial asupra continuității și disponibilității serviciilor și activităților financiare, la nivel individual și la nivel de grup.
EULAW Articolul 28 (2)
Ca parte a cadrului lor de gestionare a riscurilor TIC, entitățile financiare, altele decât entitățile menționate la articolul 16 alineatul (1) primul paragraf și altele decât microîntreprinderile, adoptă și revizuiesc periodic o strategie privind riscurile TIC generate de părți terțe, ținând seama de strategia privind existența mai multor furnizori menționată la articolul 6 alineatul (9), după caz. Această strategie privind riscurile TIC generate de părți terțe include o politică privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante oferite de furnizori terți de servicii TIC și se aplică pe o bază individuală și, după caz, pe o bază subconsolidată și consolidată. Pe baza unei evaluări a profilului general de risc al entității financiare și a amplorii și complexității serviciilor comerciale, organul de conducere examinează periodic riscurile identificate în ceea ce privește acordurile contractuale privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante.
EULAW Articolul 28 (3)
Ca parte a cadrului lor de gestionare a riscurilor TIC, entitățile financiare mențin și actualizează la nivel de entitate și la nivel subconsolidat și consolidat un registru de informații în legătură cu toate acordurile contractuale privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC oferite de furnizori terți de servicii TIC.

Acordurile contractuale menționate la primul paragraf sunt documentate în mod corespunzător, făcându-se distincția între cele care acoperă servicii TIC de sprijinire a funcțiilor critice sau importante și cele care nu le acoperă.

Entitățile financiare raportează cel puțin o dată pe an autorităților competente cu privire la numărul de noi acorduri privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC, categoriile de furnizori terți de servicii TIC, tipurile de acorduri contractuale și serviciile și funcțiile TIC care sunt oferite.

Entitățile financiare pun la dispoziția autorității competente, la cererea acesteia, registrul complet de informații sau, după caz, secțiuni specifice din acesta, împreună cu orice informații considerate necesare pentru a permite supravegherea eficace a entității financiare.

Entitățile financiare informează autoritatea competentă în timp util cu privire la orice acord contractual planificat privind utilizarea unor servicii TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante, precum și atunci când o funcție a devenit critică sau importantă.
EULAW Articolul 28 (4)

Înainte de a încheia un acord contractual privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC, entitățile financiare:

(a) 

evaluează dacă acordul contractual vizează utilizarea unor servicii TIC care sprijină o funcție critică sau importantă;

(b) 

evaluează dacă sunt îndeplinite condițiile pentru contractare din perspectiva supravegherii;

(c) 

identifică și evaluează toate riscurile relevante legate de acordul contractual, inclusiv posibilitatea ca un astfel de acord contractual să contribuie la consolidarea riscului de concentrare a serviciilor TIC, astfel cum este menționat la articolul 29;

(d) 

efectuează toate diligențele necesare cu privire la potențialii furnizori terți de servicii TIC și se asigură, pe parcursul proceselor de selecție și evaluare, că furnizorul terț de servicii TIC este adecvat;

(e) 

identifică și evaluează conflictele de interese pe care acordul contractual le poate cauza.
EULAW Articolul 28 (5)
Entitățile financiare pot încheia acorduri contractuale numai cu furnizori terți de servicii TIC care respectă standarde adecvate de securitate a informațiilor. În cazul în care acordurile contractuale respective se referă la funcții critice sau importante, entitățile financiare, înainte de încheierea acordurilor, țin seama în mod corespunzător de utilizarea de către furnizorii terți de servicii TIC a celor mai recente și de cea mai înaltă calitate standarde de securitate a informațiilor.
EULAW Articolul 28 (6)
În exercitarea drepturilor de acces, de inspecție și de audit cu privire la furnizorul terț de servicii TIC, entitățile financiare stabilesc în prealabil, utilizând o abordare bazată pe riscuri, frecvența auditurilor și a inspecțiilor, precum și domeniile care urmează să fie auditate prin aderarea la standardele de audit acceptate de comun acord, în concordanță cu instrucțiunile de supraveghere privind utilizarea și integrarea unor astfel de standarde de audit.

În cazul în care acordurile contractuale încheiate cu furnizori terți de servicii TIC privind utilizarea unor servicii TIC prezintă o complexitate tehnică ridicată, entitatea financiară verifică dacă auditorii, atât cei interni, cât și cei externi, sau un grup de auditori, dețin competențele și cunoștințele corespunzătoare pentru a efectua în mod eficace auditurile și evaluările relevante.
EULAW Articolul 28 (7)

Entitățile financiare se asigură că acordurile contractuale privind utilizarea serviciilor TIC pot fi reziliate în oricare dintre următoarele circumstanțe:

(a) 

încălcarea semnificativă de către furnizorul terț de servicii TIC a actelor cu putere de lege, a reglementărilor sau a clauzelor contractuale aplicabile;

(b) 

circumstanțe identificate pe parcursul monitorizării riscurilor TIC generate de părți terțe care sunt considerate capabile să modifice îndeplinirea funcțiilor oferite prin acordul contractual, inclusiv modificările semnificative care afectează acordul sau situația furnizorului terț de servicii TIC;

(c) 

deficiențe demonstrate ale furnizorului terț de servicii TIC legate de gestionarea sa generală a riscurilor TIC și, în special, legate de modul în care asigură disponibilitatea, autenticitatea, integritatea și confidențialitatea datelor, fie date cu caracter personal sau date sensibile din alt punct de vedere, ori a datelor fără caracter personal;

(d) 

în cazul în care autoritatea competentă nu mai poate supraveghea în mod eficace entitatea financiară ca urmare a condițiilor acordului contractual respectiv sau a unor circumstanțe legate de acesta.
EULAW Articolul 28 (8)
Pentru serviciile TIC care sprijină funcții critice sau importante, entitățile financiare instituie strategii de ieșire. Strategiile de ieșire țin seama de riscurile care pot apărea la nivelul furnizorilor terți de servicii TIC, în special o posibilă deficiență din partea acestora, o deteriorare a calității serviciilor TIC oferite, orice perturbare a activității cauzată de furnizarea necorespunzătoare sau defectuoasă a serviciilor TIC sau orice riscuri semnificative care decurg din utilizarea adecvată și continuă a serviciului TIC respectiv ori încetarea acordurilor contractuale cu furnizorii terți de servicii TIC în oricare dintre situațiile enumerate la alineatul (7).

Entitățile financiare se asigură că pot să se retragă din acordurile contractuale fără:

(a) 

perturbarea activităților lor comerciale;

(b) 

limitarea respectării cerințelor în materie de reglementare;

(c) 

afectarea continuității și calității serviciilor furnizate către clienți.

Planurile de ieșire trebuie să fie cuprinzătoare, documentate și, în conformitate cu criteriile stabilite la articolul 4 alineatul (2), trebuie să fie testate în mod suficient și revizuite periodic.

Entitățile financiare identifică soluții alternative și dezvoltă planuri de tranziție care să le permită să elimine serviciile TIC contractate și datele relevante de la furnizorul terț de servicii TIC și să le transfere în condiții de siguranță și în integralitatea lor către furnizori alternativi sau să le reintegreze în sistemul propriu.

Entitățile financiare instituie măsuri adecvate pentru situații neprevăzute astfel încât să păstreze continuitatea activității în cazul apariției situațiilor menționate la primul paragraf.

Tichete legate

Legături
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
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
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
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
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 Technical / Mechanical Failure
blocks Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change
blocks Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
is blocked by RSK-20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks PM-30 Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy
blocks SA-09(03) Establish and Maintain Trust Relationship with Providers
blocks SR-02 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-07 Supply Chain Operations Security
blocks SR-02 [L] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [M] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [H] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks 03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

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

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

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

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

    Terms & Conditions

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