+Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
---+AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

Description

Mechanisms exist to develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
∙ Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk 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 use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

Level 3 Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 develop a plan for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), including documenting selected mitigating actions and monitoring performance against those plans.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Risk Management (RSK) 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. Översikt

Rubrik Standard
AI & Autonomous Technologies Supply Chain Impacts

Description

Mechanisms exist to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

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

Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk 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 use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.

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

Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 address Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks and benefits arising from the organization's supply chain, including third-party software and data.

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 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade regleringar

2. Identifierade krav

Krav
Källa Krav

3. Relaterade regleringar

Regleringar
Källa Reglering
EULAW Artikel 17 Kvalitetsstyrningssystem
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Allmänna principer
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
EULAW Artikel 28 Allmänna principer
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
EULAW Artikel 28 1

1.   Finansiella entiteter ska hantera IKT-tredjepartsrisker som en integrerad del av IKT-risken inom sin IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1, och i enlighet med följande principer:

a)

De finansiella entiteter som har ingått ett kontraktsmässigt arrangemang om användningen av IKT-tjänster för att bedriva sin affärsverksamhet ska alltid ha det fulla ansvaret för uppfyllandet och fullgörandet av alla skyldigheter enligt denna förordning och tillämplig rätt avseende finansiella tjänster.

b)

Finansiella entiteters hantering av IKT-tredjepartsrisker ska genomföras med hänsyn till proportionalitetsprincipen, med beaktande av

i)

IKT-relaterade beroendens karaktär, omfattning, komplexitet och betydelse,

ii)

de risker som uppstår till följd av kontraktsmässiga arrangemang om användningen av IKT-tjänster som har ingåtts med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster, med hänsyn till den kritikaliteten eller betydelsen av respektive tjänst, process eller funktion, och den potentiella inverkan på kontinuiteten och tillgängligheten hos finansiella tjänster och verksamheter, på individuell nivå och på koncernnivå.

EULAW Artikel 28 2

2.   Som en del av sin IKT-riskhanteringsram ska andra finansiella entiteter än de enheter som avses i artikel 16.1 första stycket och mikroföretag anta och regelbundet se över en strategi för IKT-tredjepartsrisk, med beaktande av den strategi för flera olika leverantörer som avses i artikel 6.9 i tillämpliga fall. Strategin för IKT-tredjepartsrisk ska omfatta riktlinjer för användningen av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner och som tillhandahålls av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster och ska tillämpas individuellt och, i förekommande fall, på undergrupps- och gruppnivå. Ledningsorganet ska, baserat på en bedömning av den finansiella entitetens allmänna riskprofil samt omfattningen av och komplexiteten i entitetens affärstjänster, regelbundet se över de risker som har identifierats vad gäller kontraktsmässiga arrangemang för användningen av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner.

EULAW Artikel 28 3

3.   Som en del av sin IKT-riskhanteringsram ska finansiella entiteter upprätthålla och uppdatera ett register med information på entitetsnivå, undergrupps- och gruppnivå om alla kontraktsmässiga arrangemang som rör användningen av IKT-tjänster som tillhandahålls av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.

De kontraktsmässiga arrangemang som avses i första stycket ska dokumenteras på lämpligt sätt, varvid åtskillnad ska göras mellan de kontraktsmässiga arrangemang som omfattar kritiska eller viktiga funktioner och de som inte gör det.

Finansiella entiteter ska minst en gång per år rapportera till de behöriga myndigheterna om antalet nya arrangemang för användningen av IKT-tjänster, kategorierna av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster, typen av kontraktsmässigt arrangemang och de IKT-tjänster och funktioner som tillhandahålls.

Finansiella entiteter ska på begäran ge den behöriga myndigheten tillgång till det fullständiga registret eller angivna avsnitt av registret, tillsammans med all information som anses nödvändig för att möjliggöra en effektiv tillsyn av den finansiella entiteten.

Finansiella entiteter ska i god tid informera den behöriga myndigheten om eventuella planerade kontraktsmässiga arrangemang för användningen av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner samt när en funktion har blivit kritisk eller viktig.

EULAW Artikel 28 4

4.   Innan finansiella entiteter ingår ett kontraktsmässigt arrangemang om användning av IKT-tjänster ska de

a)

bedöma om det kontraktsmässiga arrangemanget omfattar användningen av IKT-tjänster som stöder en kritisk eller viktig funktion,

b)

bedöma om tillsynsvillkoren för utkontraktering är uppfyllda,

c)

identifiera och bedöma alla relevanta risker i samband med det kontraktsmässiga arrangemanget, inbegripet möjligheten att sådana kontraktsmässiga arrangemang kan bidra till att förstärka IKT-koncentrationsrisken enligt artikel 29,

d)

genomföra all due diligence-granskning av potentiella tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster och under urvals- och bedömningsprocesserna se till att tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster är lämplig,

e)

identifiera och bedöma intressekonflikter som det kontraktsmässiga arrangemanget kan orsaka.

EULAW Artikel 28 5

5.   Finansiella entiteter får endast ingå kontraktsmässiga arrangemang med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster som uppfyller lämpliga standarder för informationssäkerhet. När dessa kontraktsmässiga arrangemang gäller kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ska finansiella entiteter, innan de ingår arrangemangen, vederbörligen beakta huruvida tredjepartsleverantörerna av IKT-tjänster använder de senaste och mest högkvalitativa standarderna för informationssäkerhet.

EULAW Artikel 28 6

6.   När finansiella entiteter utövar åtkomst-, inspektions- och revisionsrättigheter gentemot tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster ska de baserat på en riskbaserad metod på förhand fastställa frekvensen för revisioner och inspektioner samt de områden som ska granskas genom att följa allmänt accepterade revisionsstandarder i enlighet med eventuella tillsynsinstruktioner om användning och införlivande av sådana revisionsstandarder.

Om kontraktsmässiga arrangemang som ingås med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster om användningen av IKT-tjänster medför hög teknisk komplexitet ska den finansiella entiteten kontrollera att revisorer, oavsett om de är interna eller externa eller ingår i en pool av revisorer, har lämpliga färdigheter och kunskaper för att effektivt kunna utföra de relevanta revisionerna och bedömningarna.

EULAW Artikel 28 7

7.   Finansiella entiteter ska se till att kontraktsmässiga arrangemang om användning av IKT-tjänster kan avslutas under någon av följande omständigheter:

a)

Tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster bryter på ett betydande sätt mot tillämpliga lagar, förordningar eller avtalsvillkor.

b)

Omständigheter har identifierats under övervakningen av IKT-tredjepartsrisker som bedöms kunna ändra prestandan hos de funktioner som tillhandahålls genom det kontraktsmässiga arrangemanget, inbegripet väsentliga förändringar som påverkar arrangemanget eller situationen för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster.

c)

IKT-tredjepartsleverantören har påvisade svagheter vad gäller sin övergripande IKT-riskhantering och i synnerhet det sätt på vilket den säkerställer tillgänglighet, äkthet, integritet och konfidentialitet för data, oavsett om det är personuppgifter eller på annat sätt känsliga uppgifter eller icke-personuppgifter.

d)

Om den behöriga myndigheten inte längre effektivt kan utöva tillsyn över den finansiella entiteten till följd av villkoren i eller omständigheter relaterade till respektive kontraktsmässiga arrangemang.

EULAW Artikel 28 8

8.   När det gäller IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ska finansiella entiteter införa exitstrategier. Exitstrategierna ska ta hänsyn till risker som kan uppstå hos tredjepartsleverantörerna av IKT-tjänster, i synnerhet eventuella fel hos dessa, försämring av kvaliteten på de IKT-tjänster som tillhandahålls, eventuella avbrott i verksamheten på grund av olämpligt eller misslyckat tillhandahållande av IKT-tjänster eller eventuella väsentliga risker som uppstår i samband med en lämplig och kontinuerlig användning av respektive IKT-tjänst, eller uppsägning av kontraktsmässiga arrangemang med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster under någon av de omständigheter som anges i punkt 7.

Finansiella entiteter ska säkerställa att de kan säga upp kontraktsmässiga arrangemang utan

a)

avbrott i sin affärsverksamhet,

b)

begränsning av efterlevnaden av lagstadgade krav,

c)

skada på kontinuiteten och kvaliteten hos de tjänster som tillhandahålls kunder.

Exitplanerna ska vara heltäckande och dokumenterade och de ska, i enlighet med kriterierna i artikel 4.2, vara tillräckligt testade och ska regelbundet ses över.

Finansiella entiteter ska identifiera alternativa lösningar och utarbeta övergångsplaner som gör det möjligt för dem att avlägsna de kontrakterade IKT-tjänsterna och relevanta data från tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster och på ett säkert och fullständigt sätt överföra dem till alternativa leverantörer eller återintegrera dem internt.

Finansiella entiteter ska ha lämpliga beredskapsåtgärder på plats för att upprätthålla kontinuiteten i verksamheten vid uppkomst av de omständigheter som avses i första stycket.

Länkade ärenden

Länkar
Länktyp Ärende
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 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 Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
blocks Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data
blocks Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability
blocks Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives
blocks Loss of Authorization / Certification / License
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 Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information
blocks Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
blocks Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact
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 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 Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption
blocks Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks SSO-01.01B
is blocked by RSK-20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan – Assessment Procedure
blocks PM-29 Risk Management Program Leadership Roles
blocks PM-30 Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy
blocks SA-09(03) Establish and Maintain Trust Relationship with Providers
blocks SR-02 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-07 Supply Chain Operations Security
blocks SR-02 [L] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [M] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks SR-02 [H] Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.11.01 Risk Assessment
blocks 03.17.01 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
blocks 03.17.03 Supply Chain Requirements and Processes
blocks GV.SC Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
blocks GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational …
blocks GV.SC-03 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management is integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management, risk assessment, and improvement processes
blocks GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of …
blocks GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored …
blocks GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service …
blocks ID IDENTIFY
blocks ID.RA Risk Assessment
blocks ID.IM Improvement
blocks PR PROTECT
  • 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.