+Artikel 28 Allmänna principer
---+Artikel 28 1
---+Artikel 28 2
---+Artikel 28 3
---+Artikel 28 4
---+Artikel 28 5
---+Artikel 28 6
---+Artikel 28 7
---+Artikel 28 8
---+Artikel 28 9
---+Artikel 28 10

Artikel 28 Allmänna principer

1. Översikt

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Artikel 28 9

9. De europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna ska genom den gemensamma kommittén utarbeta förslag till tekniska standarder för genomförande för att fastställa standardmallar för det register över uppgifter som avses i punkt 3, inbegripet uppgifter som är gemensamma för alla kontraktsmässiga arrangemang om användning av IKT-tjänster. De europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna ska överlämna dessa förslag till tekniska standarder för genomförande till kommissionen senast den 17 januari 2024.

Kommissionen ges befogenhet att anta de tekniska standarder för genomförande som avses i första stycket i enlighet med artikel 15 i förordningarna (EU) nr 1093/2010, (EU) nr 1094/2010 och (EU) nr 1095/2010.

Artikel 28 10

10. De europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna ska genom den gemensamma kommittén utarbeta förslag till tekniska standarder för tillsyn för att närmare specificera det detaljerade innehållet i de riktlinjer som avses i punkt 2 i fråga om de kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen för användningen av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner och som tillhandahålls av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.

När de europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna utarbetar dessa förslag till tekniska standarder för tillsyn ska de ta hänsyn till den finansiella entitetens storlek och allmänna riskprofil, och karaktären på, omfattningen av och komplexiteten i dess tjänster, verksamhet och insatser. De europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna ska överlämna dessa förslag till tekniska standarder för tillsyn till kommissionen senast den 17 januari 2024.

Kommissionen ges befogenhet att komplettera denna förordning genom att anta de tekniska standarder för tillsyn som avses i första stycket i enlighet med artiklarna 10–14 i förordningarna (EU) nr 1093/2010, (EU) nr 1094/2010 och (EU) nr 1095/2010.

1.1 Referenser

AT 9 Tz 1

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade standarder

2. Identifierade krav

Krav
Källa	Krav

3. Relaterade standarder

Standarder
Källa	Krav
SCF	Alternate Sources for Continued Support Description Mechanisms exist to provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project management Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Product / project 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 Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ 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 AST 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 provide in-house support or contract external providers for support with unsupported Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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.
SCF	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.
SCF	Supply Chain Risk Assessment (SCRA) Description Mechanisms exist to periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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 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 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 periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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.
SCF	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.
SCF	Supply Chain Risk Assessment (SCRA) Description Mechanisms exist to periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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 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 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 periodically assess supply chain risks associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). 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.
SCF	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) 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 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Review of Third-Party Services Description Mechanisms exist to monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) 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 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 monitor, regularly review and assess External Service Providers (ESPs) for compliance with established contractual requirements for security, compliance and resilience controls. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Break Clauses Description Mechanisms exist to include "break clauses" within contracts for failure to meet contract criteria for security, compliance and/or resilience controls. Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) 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 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ Contracts with ESP contain break clauses to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on ESP cybersecurity and/or data protection practices deficiency(ies). Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 include "break clauses" within contracts for failure to meet contract criteria for security, compliance and/or resilience 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.
SCF	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) 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 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Inventories Description Mechanisms exist to maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) 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 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ A procurement function maintains a list of all active External Service Providers (ESPs), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 maintain a current, accurate and complete list of External Service Providers (ESPs) that can potentially impact the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. 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	Third-Party Risk Assessments & Approvals Description Mechanisms exist to conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 conduct a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS). Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.
SCF	Third-Party Contract Requirements Description Mechanisms exist to require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Possible Solutions & Considerations Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9 ∙ Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls ∙ Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) 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 Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-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. ▪ Procurement practices contractually require ESP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. ▪ A formal agreement exists between the organization and applicable third-parties that includes a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) addressing shared sensitive data. Level 3 Well Defined Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management solution). ▪ 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 TPM 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 require contractual requirements for applicable security, compliance and resilience requirements with third-parties, reflecting the organization's needs to protect its TAASD. Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled Third-Party Management (TPM) 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.

Builddate: 27.12.2022 00:00:00 -Doknr: CELEX:32022R2554
EULAW -
European Regulation published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

Artikel 28 Allmänna principer

1. Översikt

1.1 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade standarder

2. Identifierade krav

3. Relaterade standarder

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Level 1 Performed Informally

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Level 3 Well Defined

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Description

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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