+Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
---+Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
Description
Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks).
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. Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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. Pregled
| Naslov |
Standard |
|
Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define operational resilience requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to operate in a controlled and acceptable manner during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO for critical systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO/MTD for critical systems ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Documented resilience requirements per system in the CMDB
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, Castellan) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture and backup design
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise operational resilience program (e.g., aligned with ISO 22301 and DORA) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, ServiceNow BCM) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture, backup and failover design ∙ Annual requirements recertification
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency 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 develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services. ▪ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and/or Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) are not formally planned for or resourced to meet.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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).
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 Sklici
1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve
1.3 Povezani predpisi
2. Ugotovljene zahteve
3. Povezani predpisi
Predpisi
| Vir |
Regulativa |
|
EULAW
|
Article 8 4
4. Financial entities shall identify all information assets and ICT assets, including those on remote sites, network resources and hardware equipment, and shall map those considered critical. They shall map the configuration of the information assets and ICT assets and the links and interdependencies between the different information assets and ICT assets.
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 24 Komponente politike neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 28 Upravljanje in organizacija
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 28 Upravljanje in organizacija
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 39 Komponente načrta neprekinjenega poslovanja na področju IKT
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 11 Odzivanje in okrevanje
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 12 Politike in postopki varnostnega kopiranja ter postopki in metode obnovitve in okrevanja
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 32 Varnost obdelave
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Člen 21 Ukrepi za obvladovanje tveganj za kibernetsko varnost
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 1
1. As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1) and based on the identification requirements set out in Article 8, financial entities shall put in place a comprehensive ICT business continuity policy, which may be adopted as a dedicated specific policy, forming an integral part of the overall business continuity policy of the financial entity.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 2
2. Financial entities shall implement the ICT business continuity policy through dedicated, appropriate and documented arrangements, plans, procedures and mechanisms aiming to:
|
(a)
|
ensure the continuity of the financial entity’s critical or important functions;
|
|
(b)
|
quickly, appropriately and effectively respond to, and resolve, all ICT-related incidents in a way that limits damage and prioritises the resumption of activities and recovery actions;
|
|
(c)
|
activate, without delay, dedicated plans that enable containment measures, processes and technologies suited to each type of ICT-related incident and prevent further damage, as well as tailored response and recovery procedures established in accordance with Article 12;
|
|
(d)
|
estimate preliminary impacts, damages and losses;
|
|
(e)
|
set out communication and crisis management actions that ensure that updated information is transmitted to all relevant internal staff and external stakeholders in accordance with Article 14, and report to the competent authorities in accordance with Article 19.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 3
3. As part of the ICT risk management framework referred to in Article 6(1), financial entities shall implement associated ICT response and recovery plans which, in the case of financial entities other than microenterprises, shall be subject to independent internal audit reviews.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 4
4. Financial entities shall put in place, maintain and periodically test appropriate ICT business continuity plans, notably with regard to critical or important functions outsourced or contracted through arrangements with ICT third-party service providers.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 5
5. As part of the overall business continuity policy, financial entities shall conduct a business impact analysis (BIA) of their exposures to severe business disruptions. Under the BIA, financial entities shall assess the potential impact of severe business disruptions by means of quantitative and qualitative criteria, using internal and external data and scenario analysis, as appropriate. The BIA shall consider the criticality of identified and mapped business functions, support processes, third-party dependencies and information assets, and their interdependencies. Financial entities shall ensure that ICT assets and ICT services are designed and used in full alignment with the BIA, in particular with regard to adequately ensuring the redundancy of all critical components.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 6
6. As part of their comprehensive ICT risk management, financial entities shall:
|
(a)
|
test the ICT business continuity plans and the ICT response and recovery plans in relation to ICT systems supporting all functions at least yearly, as well as in the event of any substantive changes to ICT systems supporting critical or important functions;
|
|
(b)
|
test the crisis communication plans established in accordance with Article 14.
|
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall include in the testing plans scenarios of cyber-attacks and switchovers between the primary ICT infrastructure and the redundant capacity, backups and redundant facilities necessary to meet the obligations set out in Article 12.
Financial entities shall regularly review their ICT business continuity policy and ICT response and recovery plans, taking into account the results of tests carried out in accordance with the first subparagraph and recommendations stemming from audit checks or supervisory reviews.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 7
7. Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall have a crisis management function, which, in the event of activation of their ICT business continuity plans or ICT response and recovery plans, shall, inter alia, set out clear procedures to manage internal and external crisis communications in accordance with Article 14.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 8
8. Financial entities shall keep readily accessible records of activities before and during disruption events when their ICT business continuity plans and ICT response and recovery plans are activated.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 9
9. Central securities depositories shall provide the competent authorities with copies of the results of the ICT business continuity tests, or of similar exercises.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 10
10. Financial entities, other than microenterprises, shall report to the competent authorities, upon their request, an estimation of aggregated annual costs and losses caused by major ICT-related incidents.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 11 11
11. In accordance with Article 16 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010, the ESAs, through the Joint Committee, shall by 17 July 2024 develop common guidelines on the estimation of aggregated annual costs and losses referred to in paragraph 10.
|
|
EULAW
|
Article 12 1
1. For the purpose of ensuring the restoration of ICT systems and data with minimum downtime, limited disruption and loss, as part of their ICT risk management framework, financial entities shall develop and document:
|
(a)
|
backup policies and procedures specifying the scope of the data that is subject to the backup and the minimum frequency of the backup, based on the criticality of information or the confidentiality level of the data;
|
|
(b)
|
restoration and recovery procedures and methods.
|
|
Povezane zadeve
Povezave
| Vrsta povezave |
Zadeva |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Recover |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
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
|
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
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
blocks
|
Data Destruction |
|
blocks
|
Data Encrypted for Impact |
|
blocks
|
Inhibit System Recovery |
|
blocks
|
Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Internal Defacement |
|
blocks
|
External Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Disk Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Content Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Structure Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
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
|
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
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Infrastructure Failure / Degradation |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
PS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-21.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-06.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-03.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
BCD-02 Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
IR-04(03) Continuity of Operations |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [L] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [L] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [M] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [M] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [H] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [H] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 [P] Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
03.04.04E Automation Support for Baseline Configuration |
|
blocks
|
03.08.04E System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-04 Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-02 The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-03 Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations |
|
blocks
|
RS.MA-05 The criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied |
|
blocks
|
RC RECOVER |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP Incident Recovery Plan Execution |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-02 Recovery actions are selected, scoped, prioritized, and performed |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-04 Critical mission functions and cybersecurity risk management are considered to establish post-incident operational norms |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|