+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. Prehľad

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 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požiadavky

1.3 Súvisiace predpisy

2. Identifikované požiadavky

Požiadavky

3. Súvisiace predpisy

Predpisy
EULAW Článok 22 Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT

Článok 22

Politika riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT

Ako súčasť mechanizmov na odhaľovanie anomálnych činností vrátane problémov s výkonnosťou siete IKT a incidentov súvisiacich s IKT finančné subjekty vypracujú, zdokumentujú a vykonávajú politiku v oblasti incidentov súvisiacich s IKT, prostredníctvom ktorej vykonávajú tieto činnosti:

a) 

dokumentácia procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT uvedeného v článku 17 nariadenia (EÚ) 2022/2554;

b) 

zostavenie zoznamu príslušných kontaktných osôb s internými funkciami a externými zainteresovanými stranami, ktoré sú priamo zapojené do bezpečnosti operácií IKT, a to aj pokiaľ ide o tieto prvky:

i) 

odhaľovanie a monitorovanie kybernetických hrozieb;

ii) 

odhaľovanie anomálnych činností;

iii) 

riadenie zraniteľnosti;

c) 

vytvorenie, vykonávanie a prevádzka technických, organizačných a prevádzkových mechanizmov na podporu procesu riadenia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT vrátane mechanizmov umožňujúcich urýchlené odhalenie anomálnych činností a správania v súlade s článkom 23 tohto nariadenia;

▼C1

d) 

uchovávanie všetkých dôkazov týkajúcich sa incidentov súvisiacich s IKT počas obdobia, ktoré nie je dlhšie, ako je potrebné na účely, na ktoré sa údaje zhromažďujú, zodpovedá kritickosti ovplyvnených obchodných funkcií, podporných procesov, IKT aktív a informačných aktív v súlade s článkom 8 ods. 2 delegovaného nariadenia Komisie (EÚ) 2024/1772 ( 2 ) a s akoukoľvek uplatniteľnou požiadavkou na uchovávanie podľa právnych predpisov Únie;

▼B

e) 

vytvorenie a zavedenie mechanizmov na analýzu významných alebo opakujúcich sa incidentov a modelov súvisiacich s IKT, pokiaľ ide o počet a výskyt incidentov súvisiacich s IKT.

Na účely písmena d) finančné subjekty uchovávajú dôkazy uvedené v uvedenom písmene bezpečne.
EULAW Článok 23 Odhaľovanie anomálnych činností, kritériá na odhaľovanie incidentov súvisiacich s IKT a reakcia na ne
-
EULAW Článok 31 Riadenie IKT rizika
-
EULAW Článok 9 Ochrana a prevencia
-
EULAW Článok 14 Komunikácia
-
EULAW Článok 18 Klasifikácia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT a kybernetických hrozieb
-
EULAW Článok 21 Opatrenia na riadenie kybernetických rizík
-
EULAW Článok 23 Oznamovacie povinnosti
-
EULAW Článok 9 Ochrana a prevencia
-
EULAW Článok 14 Komunikácia
-
EULAW Článok 18 Klasifikácia incidentov súvisiacich s IKT a kybernetických hrozieb
-
EULAW Článok 21 Opatrenia na riadenie kybernetických rizík
-
EULAW Článok 23 Oznamovacie povinnosti
-
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 14 1

1.   Finančné subjekty majú ako súčasť rámca riadenia IKT rizika uvedeného v článku 6 ods. 1 zavedené krízové komunikačné plány, ktoré umožňujú zodpovedné zverejňovanie aspoň závažných incidentov súvisiacich s IKT alebo zraniteľných miest pre klientov a protistrany, ako aj pre verejnosť, podľa konkrétneho prípadu.
EULAW Článok 14 2

2.   Finančné subjekty vykonávajú ako súčasť rámca riadenia IKT rizika komunikačné politiky pre interných zamestnancov a externé zainteresované strany. V komunikačných politikách pre zamestnancov sa zohľadňuje potreba rozlišovať medzi zamestnancami, ktorí sú zapojení do riadenia IKT rizika, najmä pokiaľ ide o zamestnancov zodpovedných za reakciu a obnovu, a zamestnancami, ktorí musia byť informovaní.
EULAW Článok 14 3

3.   Aspoň jedna osoba vo finančnom subjekte musí byť poverená vykonávaním komunikačnej stratégie pre incidenty súvisiace s IKT a na tento účel plní funkciu styku s verejnosťou a médiami.
EULAW Článok 18 1

1.   Finančné subjekty klasifikujú incidenty súvisiace s IKT a určujú ich vplyv na základe týchto kritérií:

a)

počet a/alebo relevantnosť klientov alebo finančných protistrán a prípadne výška alebo počet transakcií, ktoré sú ovplyvnené incidentom súvisiacim s IKT, a to, či incident súvisiaci s IKT mal vplyv na dobré meno;

b)

trvanie incidentu súvisiaceho s IKT vrátane výpadku služby;

c)

geografické rozloženie, pokiaľ ide o oblasti postihnuté incidentom súvisiacim s IKT, najmä ak sa týka viac ako dvoch členských štátov;

d)

straty údajov, ktoré incident súvisiaci s IKT prináša v súvislosti s dostupnosťou, pravosťou, integritou alebo dôvernosťou údajov;

e)

kritickosť zasiahnutých služieb vrátane transakcií a operácií finančného subjektu;

f)

hospodársky vplyv, najmä priame a nepriame náklady a straty, incidentu súvisiaceho s IKT v absolútnom aj relatívnom vyjadrení.
EULAW Článok 18 2

2.   Finančné subjekty klasifikujú kybernetické hrozby ako významné na základe kritickosti služieb vystavených riziku vrátane transakcií a operácií finančného subjektu, počtu a/alebo relevantnosti cieľových klientov alebo finančných protistrán a geografického rozloženia rizikových oblastí.

Prepojené úlohy

Prepojenia
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 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.