+Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
---+Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Business Continuity Management System (BCMS)
Description
Mechanisms exist to operate a Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) to achieve resilient Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP) ∙ Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) ∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Criticality assessments
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners identify business-critical TAASD and External Service Providers (ESPs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to identify single points of failure from a TAASD perspective. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to develop BC/DR plans to recover business-critical TAASD. ▪ Data/process owners conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) at least annually, or after any major technology or process change, to identify TAASD that are critical to the business, as well as single points of failure. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners designate alternative decision-makers if primary decision-makers are unavailable.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate the implementation of contingency planning controls to help ensure resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or BC/DR playbooks).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define. Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Standard |
|
Defined Operational Resilience Requirements
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to define operational resilience requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) to operate in a controlled and acceptable manner during: (1) Routine operations; and (2) Adverse conditions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO for critical systems
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Documented RTO/RPO/MTD for critical systems ∙ Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ Documented resilience requirements per system in the CMDB
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Business Impact Analysis (BIA) ∙ Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, Castellan) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture and backup design
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise operational resilience program (e.g., aligned with ISO 22301 and DORA) ∙ BC/DR platform (e.g., Fusion Risk Management, ServiceNow BCM) ∙ Resilience requirements traced to architecture, backup and failover design ∙ Annual requirements recertification
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services. ▪ Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) and/or Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs) are not formally planned for or resourced to meet.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with BCD domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade regleringar
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade regleringar
Regleringar
| Källa |
Reglering |
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 8 4
4. Finansiella entiteter ska identifiera alla informationstillgångar och IKT-tillgångar, inbegripet sådana på fjärrplatser, nätverksresurser och maskinvaruutrustning, och kartlägga de som anses vara kritiska. De ska kartlägga informationstillgångarnas och IKT-tillgångarnas konfiguration samt länkarna och det ömsesidiga beroendet mellan de olika informationstillgångarna och IKT-tillgångarna.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 24 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 28 Styrning och organisation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 28 Styrning och organisation
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 39 Komponenter i IKT-kontinuitetsplanen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 Åtgärder och återställande
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 12 Strategier och förfaranden för säkerhetskopiering och förfaranden och metoder för återskapande och återställning
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 32 Säkerhet i samband med behandlingen
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 1
1. Som en del av den IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1 och baserat på identifieringskraven i artikel 8 ska finansiella entiteter införa en heltäckande IKT-kontinuitetspolicy, vilken kan antas som en särskild specifik plan och utgöra en integrerad del av den finansiella entitetens övergripande kontinuitetsplan.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 2
2. Finansiella entiteter ska genomföra IKT-kontinuitetspolicyn genom särskilda, lämpliga och dokumenterade arrangemang, planer, förfaranden och mekanismer som syftar till att
|
a)
|
säkerställa kontinuiteten i den finansiella entitetens kritiska eller viktiga funktioner,
|
|
b)
|
snabbt, lämpligt och effektivt reagera på och lösa alla IKT-relaterade incidenter på ett sätt som begränsar skador och prioriterar återupptagandet av verksamhet och återställningsåtgärder,
|
|
c)
|
utan dröjsmål aktivera särskilda planer som möjliggör begränsningsåtgärder, processer och teknik som är anpassade till varje typ av IKT-relaterad incident och som förhindrar ytterligare skador, samt skräddarsydda åtgärds- och återställningsförfaranden som har fastställts i enlighet med artikel 12,
|
|
d)
|
beräkna preliminära effekter, skador och förluster,
|
|
e)
|
fastställa kommunikations- och krishanteringsinsatser som säkerställer att uppdaterad information överförs till all berörd intern personal och alla externa berörda parter i enlighet med artikel 14 och rapportera till behöriga myndigheter i enlighet med artikel 19.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 3
3. Som en del av den IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1 ska finansiella entiteter genomföra åtföljande åtgärds- och återställningsplaner avseende IKT som, när det gäller andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag, ska bli föremål för oberoende interna granskningar.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 4
4. Finansiella entiteter ska införa, upprätthålla och regelbundet testa lämpliga IKT-kontinuitetsplaner, särskilt när det gäller kritiska eller viktiga funktioner som har utkontrakterats eller kontrakterats genom arrangemang med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 5
5. Finansiella entiteter ska som en del av sin övergripande IKT-kontinuitetspolicy genomföra en verksamhetskonsekvensanalys av hur exponerade de är mot allvarliga störningar i verksamheten. I verksamhetskonsekvensanalysen ska finansiella entiteter bedöma vilka potentiella följder som allvarliga störningar i verksamheten kan få genom kvantitativa och kvalitativa kriterier och med hjälp av interna och externa data och scenarioanalys, beroende på vad som är lämpligt. I verksamhetskonsekvensanalysen ska hänsyn tas till kritikaliteten i de identifierade och kartlagda affärsfunktionerna, stödprocesserna, tredjepartsberoendena och informationstillgångarna, samt deras ömsesidiga beroende. Finansiella entiteter ska säkerställa att IKT-tillgångarna och IKT-tjänsterna är utformade och används i full samstämmighet med verksamhetskonsekvensanalysen, särskilt vad gäller att i tillräcklig utsträckning säkerställa reservkapaciteten för alla kritiska komponenter.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 6
6. Som en del av sin övergripande IKT-riskhantering ska finansiella entiteter
|
a)
|
testa IKT-kontinuitetsplanerna och åtgärds- och återställningsplanerna avseende IKT för de IKT-system som stöder alla funktioner minst en gång per år samt i samband med omfattande ändringar av de IKT-system som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner,
|
|
b)
|
testa de kriskommunikationsplaner som har upprättats i enlighet med artikel 14.
|
Vid tillämpning av första stycket led a ska andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag i testplanerna inkludera scenarier för cyberangrepp och byten mellan den primära IKT-infrastrukturen och den reservkapacitet, de säkerhetskopior och reservanläggningar som krävs för att uppfylla de skyldigheter som anges i artikel 12.
Finansiella entiteter ska regelbundet se över sin IKT-kontinuitetspolicy och sina åtgärds- och återställningsplaner avseende IKT med hänsyn till resultatet av tester som har utförts i enlighet med första stycket och rekommendationer från revisionskontroller eller tillsynsgranskningar.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 7
7. Andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag ska ha en krishanteringsfunktion som, om deras IKT-kontinuitetsplaner eller åtgärds- och återställningsplaner avseende IKT aktiveras, bland annat ska innehålla tydliga förfaranden för hantering av intern och extern kriskommunikation i enlighet med artikel 14.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 8
8. Finansiella entiteter ska ha lättillgänglig dokumentation om den verksamhet som pågår före och under avbrott när deras IKT-kontinuitetsplaner och åtgärds- och återställningsplaner avseende IKT aktiveras.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 9
9. Värdepapperscentraler ska förse de behöriga myndigheterna med kopior av resultatet av IKT-kontinuitetstesterna eller liknande övningar.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 10
10. Andra finansiella entiteter än mikroföretag ska på begäran till de behöriga myndigheterna lämna en uppskattning av de totala årliga kostnader och förluster som orsakas av allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 11 11
11. I enlighet med artikel 16 i förordningarna (EU) nr 1093/2010, (EU) nr 1094/2010 och (EU) nr 1095/2010 ska de europeiska tillsynsmyndigheterna genom den gemensamma kommittén senast den 17 juli 2024 utarbeta gemensamma riktlinjer om uppskattningen av de totala årliga kostnaderna och förlusterna som avses i punkt 10.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 12 1
1. För att säkerställa att IKT-system och data kan återställas med minsta möjliga driftstopp, begränsade avbrott och förluster ska finansiella entiteter som en del i sin IKT-riskhanteringsram utarbeta och dokumentera
|
a)
|
strategier och förfaranden för säkerhetskopiering där de anger omfattningen av de data som ska säkerhetskopieras och minimifrekvensen för säkerhetskopieringen, baserat på informationens kritikalitet eller uppgifternas konfidentialitetsnivå,
|
|
b)
|
förfaranden och metoder för återskapande och återställning.
|
|
Länkade ärenden
Länkar
| Länktyp |
Ärende |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 09 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Recover |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity |
|
blocks
|
Unauthorized Retention / Inability to Dispose of Data |
|
blocks
|
Business / Service Interruption |
|
blocks
|
Data Loss / Integrity Compromise |
|
blocks
|
Reduced Operational Productivity |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
System / Data Compromise (Non-Technical Vector) |
|
blocks
|
Revenue Loss |
|
blocks
|
Contractual Default / Termination |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Competitive Advantage |
|
blocks
|
Reputational Harm / Loss of Stakeholder Trust |
|
blocks
|
Regulatory / Legal / Contractual Financial Liability |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability |
|
blocks
|
Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact |
|
blocks
|
Incident Persistence / Recurrence |
|
blocks
|
Incident Response / Recovery Cost |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
blocks
|
Data Destruction |
|
blocks
|
Data Encrypted for Impact |
|
blocks
|
Inhibit System Recovery |
|
blocks
|
Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Internal Defacement |
|
blocks
|
External Defacement |
|
blocks
|
Disk Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Content Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Disk Structure Wipe |
|
blocks
|
Failure to Achieve Strategic / Mission Objectives |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Third-Party Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Data / Service Availability |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Critical Knowledge / Capability |
|
blocks
|
Drought & Water Shortage |
|
blocks
|
Earthquakes |
|
blocks
|
Fire & Wildfires |
|
blocks
|
Floods |
|
blocks
|
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms |
|
blocks
|
Landslides & Debris Flow |
|
blocks
|
Pandemic (Disease) Outbreaks |
|
blocks
|
Severe Weather |
|
blocks
|
Space Weather |
|
blocks
|
Thunderstorms & Lightning |
|
blocks
|
Tornadoes |
|
blocks
|
Tsunamis |
|
blocks
|
Volcanoes |
|
blocks
|
Winter Storms & Extreme Cold |
|
blocks
|
Civil or Political Unrest |
|
blocks
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Hazardous Materials Emergencies |
|
blocks
|
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons |
|
blocks
|
Physical Crime |
|
blocks
|
Terrorism & Armed Attacks |
|
blocks
|
Utility Service Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Technical / Mechanical Failure |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Infrastructure Failure / Degradation |
|
blocks
|
PS-01.04B |
|
blocks
|
PS-02.02B |
|
blocks
|
OPS-21.01B |
|
blocks
|
SSO-06.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.01B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-01.02B |
|
blocks
|
BCM-03.01B |
|
is blocked by
|
BCD-02 Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) – Assessment Procedure |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
IR-04(03) Continuity of Operations |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [L] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [L] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [L] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [M] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [M] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [M] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
CP-01 [H] Policy and Procedures |
|
blocks
|
CP-02 [H] Contingency Plan |
|
blocks
|
CP-10 [H] System Recovery and Reconstitution |
|
blocks
|
PM-08 [P] Critical Infrastructure Plan |
|
blocks
|
GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities |
|
blocks
|
ID.IM-04 Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-02 The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats |
|
blocks
|
PR.IR-03 Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations |
|
blocks
|
RS.MA-05 The criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied |
|
blocks
|
RC RECOVER |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP Incident Recovery Plan Execution |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-02 Recovery actions are selected, scoped, prioritized, and performed |
|
blocks
|
RC.RP-04 Critical mission functions and cybersecurity risk management are considered to establish post-incident operational norms |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|