+Incident Handling
---+Correlation with External Organizations

Incident Handling

Description

Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem 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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response 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 operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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

Correlation with External Organizations

Description

Mechanisms exist to coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management 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 IRO 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 coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

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 22 Politica de gestionare a incidentelor legate de TIC

Articolul 22

Politica de gestionare a incidentelor legate de TIC

Ca parte a mecanismelor de detectare a activităților anormale, inclusiv a problemelor de performanță a rețelelor TIC și a incidentelor legate de TIC, entitățile financiare elaborează, documentează și pun în aplicare o politică privind incidentele legate de TIC prin care:

(a) 

documentează procesul de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la articolul 17 din Regulamentul (UE) 2022/2554;

(b) 

stabilesc o listă a contactelor relevante cu funcțiile interne și cu părțile interesate externe care sunt direct implicate în securitatea operațiunilor TIC, inclusiv în ceea ce privește:

(i) 

detectarea și monitorizarea amenințărilor cibernetice;

(ii) 

detectarea activităților anormale;

(iii) 

gestionarea vulnerabilităților;

(c) 

instituie, pun în aplicare și operează mecanisme tehnice, organizaționale și operaționale pentru a sprijini procesul de gestionare a incidentelor legate de TIC, inclusiv mecanisme care permit detectarea rapidă a activităților și comportamentelor anormale în conformitate cu articolul 23 din prezentul regulament;

▼C1

(d) 

păstrează toate dovezile referitoare la incidentele legate de TIC pentru o perioadă care nu este mai lungă decât ceea ce este necesar în scopurile pentru care sunt colectate datele și care este proporțională cu caracterul critic al funcțiilor operaționale, al proceselor de sprijin și al activelor TIC și informaționale afectate, în conformitate cu articolul 8 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2024/1772 al Comisiei ( 2 ) și cu orice cerință de păstrare aplicabilă în temeiul dreptului Uniunii;

▼B

(e) 

instituie și pun în aplicare mecanisme de analiză a incidentelor semnificative sau recurente legate de TIC și a tiparelor în ceea ce privește numărul și apariția incidentelor legate de TIC.

În sensul literei (d), entitățile financiare păstrează dovezile menționate la litera respectivă în condiții de securitate.
EULAW Articolul 23 Detectarea activităților anormale și criterii pentru detectarea incidentelor legate de TIC și răspunsul la acestea
EULAW Articolul 31 Gestionarea riscurilor TIC
EULAW Articolul 9 Protecție și prevenire
EULAW Articolul 14 Comunicare
EULAW Articolul 18 Clasificarea incidentelor legate de TIC și a amenințărilor cibernetice
EULAW Articolul 21 Măsuri de gestionare a riscurilor în materie de securitate cibernetică
EULAW Articolul 23 Obligații de raportare
EULAW Articolul 9 Protecție și prevenire
EULAW Articolul 14 Comunicare
EULAW Articolul 18 Clasificarea incidentelor legate de TIC și a amenințărilor cibernetice
EULAW Articolul 21 Măsuri de gestionare a riscurilor în materie de securitate cibernetică
EULAW Articolul 23 Obligații de raportare
EULAW Articolul 9 (4)

Ca parte a cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la articolul 6 alineatul (1), entitățile financiare:

(a) 

elaborează și documentează o politică de securitate a informațiilor care definește norme de protecție a disponibilității, autenticității, integrității și confidențialității datelor, a activelor informaționale și a activelor TIC, inclusiv a celor ale clienților lor, după caz;

(b) 

stabilesc, urmând o abordare bazată pe riscuri, o structură de gestionare solidă a rețelei și a infrastructurii care utilizează tehnici, metode și protocoale adecvate ce pot include punerea în aplicare a unor mecanisme automatizate pentru a izola activele informaționale afectate în cazul unor atacuri cibernetice;

(c) 

pun în aplicare politici care limitează accesul fizic sau logic la activele informaționale și activele TIC la ceea ce este necesar exclusiv pentru funcții și activități legitime și aprobate și stabilesc în acest scop un set de politici, proceduri și controale care să vizeze drepturile de acces și o bună administrare a acestora;

(d) 

pun în aplicare politici și protocoale pentru mecanisme solide de autentificare, bazate pe standarde relevante și sisteme de control specifice, precum și măsuri de protecție a cheilor criptografice, prin care datele sunt criptate în funcție de rezultatele proceselor aprobate de clasificare a datelor și de evaluare a riscurilor TIC;

(e) 

pun în aplicare politici, proceduri și controale documentate pentru gestionarea modificărilor la nivelul TIC, inclusiv modificări la nivelul componentelor software, hardware, firmware, parametrii sistemelor sau de securitate, care sunt fondate pe o abordare bazată pe evaluarea riscurilor și fac parte integrantă din procesul general de gestionare a modificărilor din cadrul entității financiare, pentru a se asigura că toate modificările aduse sistemelor TIC sunt înregistrate, testate, evaluate, aprobate, puse în aplicare și verificate în mod controlat;

(f) 

dispun de politici documentate adecvate și cuprinzătoare pentru corecții și actualizări.

În scopul aplicării literei (b) de la primul paragraf, entitățile financiare concep infrastructura de conectare a rețelei într-un mod care permite întreruperea sau segmentarea instantanee a acesteia, pentru a reduce la minimum și a preveni contagiunea, în special în cazul proceselor financiare interconectate.

În scopul aplicării literei (e) de la primul paragraf, procesul de gestionare a modificărilor la nivelul TIC este aprobat de liniile de management corespunzătoare și dispune de protocoale specifice.
EULAW Articolul 14 (1)
Ca parte a cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC menționat la articolul 6 alineatul (1), entitățile financiare instituie planuri de comunicare în situații de criză care permit o informare responsabilă a clienților și a contrapărților, precum și a publicului, după caz, cu privire la, cel puțin, incidentele majore sau vulnerabilitățile legate de TIC.
EULAW Articolul 14 (2)
Ca parte a cadrului de gestionare a riscurilor TIC, entitățile financiare pun în aplicare politici de comunicare pentru personalul intern și pentru părțile interesate externe. Politicile de comunicare pentru personal țin seama de necesitatea de a face distincția între personalul implicat în gestionarea riscurilor TIC, în special personalul responsabil pentru răspuns și recuperare, și personalul care trebuie să fie informat.
EULAW Articolul 14 (3)
Cel puțin o persoană din entitatea financiară este însărcinată cu punerea în aplicare a strategiei de comunicare pentru incidentele legate de TIC și îndeplinește în acest scop funcția de legătură cu publicul și mass-media.
EULAW Articolul 18 (1)

Entitățile financiare clasifică incidentele legate de TIC și determină impactul acestora pe baza următoarelor criterii:

(a) 

numărul și/sau relevanța clienților sau a contrapărților financiare afectate și, după caz, cuantumul și numărul tranzacțiilor afectate de incidentul legat de TIC, precum și eventualul impact al incidentului legat de TIC asupra reputației;

(b) 

durata incidentului legat de TIC, inclusiv perioada de indisponibilitate a serviciului;

(c) 

întinderea geografică în ceea ce privește zonele afectate de incidentul legat de TIC, în special în cazul în care acesta afectează mai mult de două state membre;

(d) 

pierderile de date pe care le implică incidentul legat de TIC, în ceea ce privește disponibilitatea, autenticitatea, integritatea sau confidențialitatea datelor;

(e) 

caracterul critic al serviciilor afectate, inclusiv al tranzacțiilor și operațiunilor entității financiare;

(f) 

impactul economic, în special costurile și pierderile directe și indirecte, ale incidentului legat de TIC, în termeni atât absoluți, cât și relativi.
EULAW Articolul 18 (2)
Entitățile financiare clasifică amenințările cibernetice ca fiind semnificative pe baza caracterului critic al serviciilor expuse riscului, inclusiv al tranzacțiilor și operațiunilor entității financiare, precum și pe baza numărului și/sau relevanței clienților sau a contrapărților financiare vizate și a întinderii geografice a zonelor expuse riscului.

Tichete legate

Legături
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Respond
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
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 Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Civil or Political Unrest
blocks Malicious Cyber Activity
blocks Hazardous Materials Emergencies
blocks Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
blocks Physical Crime
blocks Terrorism & Armed Attacks
blocks Utility Service Disruption
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 Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
is blocked by IRO-06 Incident Handling – Assessment Procedure
blocks IR-04 Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [L] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [M] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [H] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [P] Incident Handling
blocks 03.03.04 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
blocks 03.06.01 Incident Handling
blocks 03.06.02 Incident Monitoring, Reporting, and Response Assistance
blocks 03.06.05 Incident Response Plan
blocks 03.17.03E Component Authenticity
blocks GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities
blocks DE.AE Adverse Event Analysis
blocks DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
blocks DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources
blocks DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
blocks DE.AE-06 Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff and tools
blocks DE.AE-08 Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
blocks RS RESPOND
blocks RS.MA Incident Management
blocks RS.MA-01 The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is declared
blocks RS.MA-02 Incident reports are triaged and validated
blocks RS.MA-04 Incidents are escalated or elevated as needed
blocks RS.AN Incident Analysis
blocks RS.AN-06 Actions performed during an investigation are recorded, and the records' integrity and provenance are preserved
blocks RS.CO Incident Response Reporting and Communication
blocks RS.CO-02 Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents
blocks RS.CO-03 Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders
blocks RS.MI Incident Mitigation
blocks RS.MI-01 Incidents are contained
blocks RS.MI-02 Incidents are eradicated
blocks RC.RP-06 The end of incident recovery is declared based on criteria, and incident-related documentation is completed
  • 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.