+Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)

Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
∙ NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework)

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity & Data Protection Program (CDPP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC platform (e.g., OneTrust, ServiceNow GRC, LogicGate)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

∙ Steering committee
∙ ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
∙ Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM)
∙ Secure Controls Framework (SCF), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and/or ISO 27001:2022 alignment

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

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
▪ The responsibility for developing and operating cybersecurity and data privacy procedures are up to the business process owner(s) to determine, including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
▪ Governance documentation is made available to internal personnel (e.g., policies, standards and procedures).
▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel ensure cybersecurity policies and standards are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to implement and manage the organization's internal control system.
▪ Legal representation is consulted on an as-needed basis.

Level 3 Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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).
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of security, compliance and resilience governance controls.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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. Prehľad

Názov Štandard

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požiadavky

1.3 Súvisiace predpisy

2. Identifikované požiadavky

Požiadavky
Zdroj Požiadavka

3. Súvisiace predpisy

Predpisy
Zdroj Regulácia
EULAW Článok 6 2

2.   Rámec riadenia IKT rizika zahŕňa aspoň stratégie, politiky, postupy, IKT protokoly a nástroje, ktoré sú potrebné na riadnu a primeranú ochranu všetkých informačných aktív a IKT aktív vrátane počítačového softvéru, hardvéru, serverov, ako aj ochranu všetkých relevantných fyzických zložiek a infraštruktúr, ako sú priestory, dátové centrá a citlivé určené oblasti s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby boli všetky informačné aktíva a IKT aktíva primerane chránené pred rizikami vrátane poškodenia a neoprávneného prístupu či používania.

EULAW Článok 9 4

4.   Ako súčasť rámca riadenia IKT rizika uvedeného v článku 6 ods. 1 finančné subjekty:

a)

vypracúvajú a zdokumentujú politiku v oblasti informačnej bezpečnosti, v ktorej sa vymedzujú pravidlá na ochranu dostupnosti, pravosti, integrity a dôvernosti údajov, informačných aktív a IKT aktív vrátane prípadných údajov a aktív ich zákazníkov;

b)

na základe prístupu založeného na riziku zavedú spoľahlivé riadenie siete a infraštruktúry pomocou vhodných techník, metód a protokolov, ktoré môžu zahŕňať zavedenie automatizovaných mechanizmov na izolovanie dotknutých informačných aktív v prípade kybernetických útokov;

c)

vykonávajú politiky, ktoré obmedzujú fyzický alebo logický prístup k informačným aktívam a IKT aktívam len na to, čo je nevyhnutné pre legitímne a schválené funkcie a činnosti, a na tento účel zavedú súbor politík, postupov a kontrol, ktoré sa zaoberajú oprávneniami na prístup a zabezpečujú ich riadnu správu;

d)

vykonávajú politiky a protokoly pre silné mechanizmy autentifikácie založené na príslušných normách a špecializovaných kontrolných systémoch, ako aj ochranné opatrenia v podobe šifrovacích kľúčov, pričom údaje sú šifrované na základe výsledkov schválenej klasifikácie údajov a procesov posudzovania IKT rizika;

e)

vykonávajú zdokumentované politiky, postupy a kontroly riadenia zmien IKT vrátane zmien komponentov softvéru, hardvéru, firmvéru, systémov alebo bezpečnostných parametrov, ktoré sú založené na prístupe posudzovania rizík a sú neoddeliteľnou súčasťou celkového procesu riadenia zmien finančného subjektu s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby sa všetky zmeny IKT systémov zaznamenávali, testovali, posudzovali, schvaľovali, vykonávali a overovali kontrolovaným spôsobom;

f)

majú vhodné a komplexné zdokumentované politiky týkajúce sa opráv a aktualizácií.

Na účely prvého pododseku písm. b) finančné subjekty navrhnú infraštruktúru sieťového pripojenia tak, aby umožňovala jej okamžité odpojenie alebo segmentáciu s cieľom minimalizovať šírenie nákazy a predchádzať mu, a to najmä v prípade vzájomne prepojených finančných procesov.

Proces riadenia zmien IKT na účely prvého pododseku písm. e) schvaľujú príslušné riadiace línie, ktoré majú zavedené osobitné protokoly.

EULAW Článok 24 Zodpovednosť prevádzkovateľa
-
EULAW Článok 21 Opatrenia na riadenie kybernetických rizík
-
EULAW Článok 17 Systém riadenia kvality
-
EULAW Článok 28 Správa a riadenie a organizácia
-
EULAW Článok 5 Správa a riadenie a organizácia
-
EULAW Článok 9 Ochrana a prevencia
-
EULAW Článok 16 Zjednodušený rámec riadenia IKT rizika
-
EULAW Článok 5 1

1.   Finančné subjekty musia mať v súlade s článkom 6 ods. 4 zavedený rámec vnútornej správy a riadenia a kontroly, ktorým sa zabezpečí účinné a obozretné riadenie IKT rizika s cieľom dosiahnuť vysokú úroveň digitálnej prevádzkovej odolnosti.

EULAW Článok 16 1

1.   Články 5 až 15 tohto nariadenia sa neuplatňujú na malé a neprepojené investičné spoločnosti, platobné inštitúcie vyňaté podľa smernice (EÚ) 2015/2366; inštitúcie vyňaté podľa smernice 2013/36/EÚ, v súvislosti s ktorými sa členské štáty rozhodli neuplatňovať možnosť uvedenú v článku 2 ods. 4 tohto nariadenia, inštitúcie elektronického peňažníctva vyňaté podľa smernice 2009/110/ES; a malé inštitúcie zamestnaneckého dôchodkového zabezpečenia.

Bez toho, aby bol dotknutý prvý pododsek subjekty uvedené v prvom pododseku:

a)

zavedú a udržiavajú spoľahlivý a zdokumentovaný rámec riadenia IKT rizika, v ktorom sa podrobne opisujú mechanizmy a opatrenia zamerané na rýchle, účinné a komplexné riadenie IKT rizika vrátane ochrany príslušných fyzických zložiek a infraštruktúr;

b)

neustále monitorujú bezpečnosť a fungovanie všetkých IKT systémov;

c)

minimalizujú vplyv IKT rizika využívaním spoľahlivých, odolných a aktualizovaných IKT systémov, protokolov a nástrojov, ktoré sú vhodné na podporu výkonu ich činností a poskytovania služieb a na primeranú ochranu dostupnosti, pravosti, integrity a dôvernosti údajov v sieťach a informačných systémoch;

d)

umožňujú rýchlo identifikovať a odhaľovať zdroje IKT rizika a anomálií v sieťach a informačných systémoch a rýchlo riešiť incidenty súvisiace s IKT;

e)

identifikujú kľúčové závislosti od externých poskytovateľov IKT služieb;

f)

zabezpečujú kontinuitu kritických alebo dôležitých funkcií prostredníctvom plánov kontinuity činností a opatrení reakcie a obnovy, ktoré zahŕňajú aspoň záložné a reštaurovacie opatrenia;

g)

pravidelne testujú plány a opatrenia uvedené v písmene f), ako aj účinnosť kontrol vykonaných v súlade s písmenami a) a c);

h)

náležite vykonávajú príslušné operatívne závery, ktoré vyplývajú z testov uvedených v písmene g) a z analýzy po incidente, do procesu posudzovania IKT rizika a v súlade s potrebami a rizikovým profilom v oblasti IKT vypracúvajú programy zvyšovania informovanosti v oblasti bezpečnosti IKT a školenia digitálnej prevádzkovej odolnosti pre zamestnancov a manažment.

EULAW Článok 16 2

2.   Rámec riadenia IKT rizika uvedený v odseku 1 druhom pododseku písm. a) sa pravidelne dokumentuje a preskúmava v prípade výskytu závažných incidentov súvisiacich s IKT v súlade s pokynmi orgánov dohľadu. Na základe skúseností získaných pri vykonávaní a monitorovaní sa rámec neustále vylepšuje. Správa o preskúmaní rámca riadenia IKT rizika sa predkladá príslušnému orgánu na jeho žiadosť.

EULAW Článok 95 Riadenie prevádzkových a bezpečnostných rizík
-
EULAW Článok 97 Autentifikácia
-

Prepojené úlohy

Prepojenia
Typ prepojenia Úloha
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
blocks Business / Service Interruption
blocks Data Loss / Integrity Compromise
blocks Reduced Operational Productivity
blocks System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector)
blocks System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector)
blocks Revenue Loss
blocks Contractual Default / Termination
blocks Loss of Competitive Advantage
blocks Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Harm from Illegal, Abusive or Unsafe Content / Conduct
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability
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 Malicious Cyber Activity
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 Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks OIS-01.01B
blocks OIS-01.02B
is blocked by GOV-02 Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-01 Information Security Program Plan
blocks 03.15.01 Policy and Procedures
blocks GV GOVERN
blocks GV.RM-01 Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
blocks GV.RM-03 Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
blocks GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually …
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-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks PR PROTECT
blocks PR.IR Technology Infrastructure Resilience
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

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

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

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

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

    Terms & Conditions

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