+Artikel 53 Skyldigheter för leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål
---+Artikel 53 1.
---+Artikel 53 2.
---+Artikel 53 3.
---+Artikel 53 4.
---+Artikel 53 5.
---+Artikel 53 6.
---+Artikel 53 7.
|
Artikel 53 Skyldigheter för leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål
-
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Reglering |
|
Artikel 53 1.
|
Leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål ska
a)
utarbeta och uppdatera den tekniska dokumentationen för modellen, inbegripet tränings- och testningsförfarandet samt resultaten av utvärderingen, som åtminstone ska innehålla de uppgifter som anges i bilaga XI, i syfte att på begäran lägga fram den för AI-byrån och de nationella behöriga myndigheterna,
b)
utarbeta, uppdatera och göra information och dokumentation tillgänglig för leverantörer av AI-system som avser att integrera AI-modellen för allmänna ändamål i sina AI-system; utan att det påverkar behovet av att respektera och skydda immateriella rättigheter och konfidentiell affärsinformation eller företagshemligheter i enlighet med unionsrätten och nationell rätt ska informationen och dokumentationen
i)
göra det möjligt för leverantörer av AI-system att ha en god förståelse av kapaciteten och begränsningarna hos AI-modellen för allmänna ändamål och att fullgöra sina skyldigheter enligt denna förordning, och
ii)
minst innehålla de uppgifter som anges i bilaga XII,
c)
införa en policy för att följa unionsrätten om upphovsrätt och närstående rättigheter, och i synnerhet för att identifiera och efterleva, inbegripet med hjälp av den senaste tekniken, ett förbehåll för rättigheter som uttryckts enligt artikel 4.3 i direktiv (EU) 2019/790,
d)
utarbeta och göra en tillräckligt detaljerad sammanfattning av det innehåll som använts för träning av AI-modellen för allmänna ändamål allmänt tillgänglig, i enlighet med en mall som tillhandahålls av AI-byrån.
|
|
Artikel 53 2.
|
De skyldigheter som anges i punkt 1 a och b är inte tillämpliga på leverantörer av AI-modeller som släpps ut med en kostnadsfri licens med öppen källkod som möjliggör åtkomst, användning, ändring och distribution av modellen, och vars parametrar, inbegripet vikter, information om modellarkitekturen och information om modellanvändning, görs allmänt tillgängliga. Detta undantag är inte tillämpligt på AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål med systemrisker.
|
|
Artikel 53 3.
|
Leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål ska vid behov samarbeta med kommissionen och de nationella behöriga myndigheterna vid utövandet av sin behörighet och sina befogenheter enligt denna förordning.
|
|
Artikel 53 4.
|
Leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål får förlita sig på förfarandekoder i den mening som avses i artikel 56 för att visa att de fullgjort de skyldigheter som anges i punkt 1 i den här artikeln, till dess att en harmoniserad standard har offentliggjorts. Efterlevnad av europeiska harmoniserade standarder ger leverantörer presumtion om överensstämmelse i den utsträckning som de standarderna omfattar dessa skyldigheter. Leverantörer av AI-modeller för allmänna ändamål som inte följer en godkänd förfarandekod eller en europeisk harmoniserad standard ska uppvisa alternativa lämpliga sätt att uppfylla skyldigheterna, vilka ska bedömas av kommissionen.
|
|
Artikel 53 5.
|
I syfte att underlätta efterlevnaden av bilaga XI, särskilt punkt 2 d och e i den bilagan, ges kommissionen befogenhet att anta delegerade akter i enlighet med artikel 97 för att närmare specificera mät- och beräkningsmetoder i syfte att möjliggöra jämförbar och verifierbar dokumentation.
|
|
Artikel 53 6.
|
Kommissionen ges befogenhet att anta delegerade akter i enlighet med artikel 97.2 för att ändra bilagorna XI och XII mot bakgrund av pågående teknisk utveckling.
|
|
Artikel 53 7.
|
All information eller dokumentation som har erhållits enligt denna artikel, inbegripet företagshemligheter, ska behandlas i enlighet med de konfidentialitetskrav som anges i artikel 78.
|
,
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade standarder
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade standarder
Standarder
| Källa |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Intellectual Property Infringement Protections
Description
Mechanisms exist to prevent third-party Intellectual Property (IP) rights infringement by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Legal review
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Legal review
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Legal review
∙ Steering committee
∙ Board of Directors (BoD)
∙ Artificial Intelligence (AI) / autonomous technologies governance program
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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ 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 AAT 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 prevent third-party Intellectual Property (IP) rights infringement by AAT.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Data Source Lineage & Origin Disclosure
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) publicly disclose information with sufficient detail to assess:
(1) Content lineage; and
(2) Any transforms or modification of that data used for the output.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Disclose data sources used by AI tools in user documentation
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring disclosure of AI training data sources
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal AI transparency policy
∙ Data source disclosure in user documentation
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI transparency program
∙ Public disclosure of data lineage
∙ Model cards with data sourcing
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI transparency framework
∙ Automated disclosure generation
∙ Regulatory compliance tracking for AI transparency
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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ 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 AAT 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 ensure Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) publicly disclose information with sufficient detail to assess:
(1) Content lineage; and
(2) The origin of data used by the AAT.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Implementation Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document AI implementation steps and configuration
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ AI implementation documentation template
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal AI implementation documentation policy
∙ Technical documentation requirements
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI documentation program
∙ Standardized implementation documentation templates
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI documentation platform
∙ Automated documentation generation from MLOps tools
∙ Model cards and system cards
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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ 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 AAT 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 ensure AAT include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Implementation Documentation
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document AI implementation steps and configuration
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ AI implementation documentation template
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal AI implementation documentation policy
∙ Technical documentation requirements
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI documentation program
∙ Standardized implementation documentation templates
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI documentation platform
∙ Automated documentation generation from MLOps tools
∙ Model cards and system cards
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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management 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
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ 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 AAT 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 ensure AAT include clear and concise documentation that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to personnel implementing and maintaining the AAT that, at a minimum, provides:
(1) Contact details of the provider;
(2) Characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the AAT;
(3) Errata from the AAT's initial conformity assessment;
(4) Details necessary to interpret the outputs of the AAT;
(5) Human oversight measures necessary to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of the AAT;
(6) Computational and hardware resources needed to operate the AAT;
(7) Projected useable lifetime of the AAT; and
(8) A description of the mechanisms included within the AAT system to properly collect, store and interpret event logs.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Product Conformity Governance
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify laws/regulations applicable to any developed products (e.g., privacy, accessibility)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Regulatory requirements checklist for product development
∙ Legal review before release
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Product compliance requirements defined at project start
∙ Compliance validation before release
∙ Regulatory conformity records
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Product conformity governance program (statutory, regulatory, certification requirements)
∙ Compliance gates in release management
∙ Conformity documentation (e.g., declarations of conformity)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise product compliance program covering statutory/regulatory conformity (e.g., EU CRA, FDA, UL 2900)
∙ Regulatory affairs and product security integration
∙ Conformity assessment and certification 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing 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 TDA 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 ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Product Conformity Governance
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify laws/regulations applicable to any developed products (e.g., privacy, accessibility)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Regulatory requirements checklist for product development
∙ Legal review before release
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Product compliance requirements defined at project start
∙ Compliance validation before release
∙ Regulatory conformity records
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Product conformity governance program (statutory, regulatory, certification requirements)
∙ Compliance gates in release management
∙ Conformity documentation (e.g., declarations of conformity)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise product compliance program covering statutory/regulatory conformity (e.g., EU CRA, FDA, UL 2900)
∙ Regulatory affairs and product security integration
∙ Conformity assessment and certification 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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing 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 TDA 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 ensure developed Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on the product's and/or service's:
(1) Use case(s); and
(2) Geographic markets.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Technical Documentation Artifacts
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate appropriate technical documentation artifacts for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Basic documentation (architecture, configuration, user guide) for developed products
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documentation standards for developed systems (design, configuration, operations)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Technical documentation deliverables defined in the SDLC (architecture, security configuration, interfaces)
∙ Documentation stored in controlled repository
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Technical documentation standards with security content requirements
∙ Documentation reviewed at design and release gates
∙ Developer contract deliverables
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise technical documentation program covering internal and third-party developed products
∙ Documentation management system with version control
∙ Regulatory documentation requirements (e.g., EU CRA technical documentation)
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160).
▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing 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 TDA 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 generate appropriate technical documentation artifacts for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) in sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements.
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.
|
|