+Incident Handling
---+Correlation with External Organizations

Incident Handling

Description

Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management

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

∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem 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

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Incident Response (IRO) 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

Correlation with External Organizations

Description

Mechanisms exist to coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Basic incident response plan
∙ Designate incident response contact

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

∙ Documented incident response plan
∙ Incident log
∙ Designated IR team

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

∙ Formal incident response program
∙ IR playbooks
∙ Tabletop exercises

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

∙ Enterprise incident response program
∙ 24/7 SOC monitoring
∙ SOAR platform

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

∙ Enterprise SOC with SIEM/SOAR (e.g., Splunk SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR)
∙ IR retainer
∙ Threat hunting

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Incident Response (IRO) 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 IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ 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 IRO 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 coordinate with approved third-parties to achieve a cross-organization perspective on incident awareness and more effective incident responses.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1.1 Referenser

1.2 Identifierade krav

1.3 Relaterade regleringar

2. Identifierade krav

Krav

3. Relaterade regleringar

Regleringar
EULAW Artikel 22 Policy för hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter

Artikel 22

Policy för hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter

Som en del av mekanismerna för att upptäcka onormal verksamhet, inbegripet frågor som rör IKT-nätverkens prestanda och IKT-relaterade incidenter, ska finansiella entiteter utarbeta, dokumentera och genomföra en policy för IKT-relaterade incidenter, genom vilken de ska

a) 

dokumentera den process för hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter som avses i artikel 17 i förordning (EU) 2022/2554,

b) 

upprätta en förteckning över relevanta kontakter med interna funktioner och externa berörda parter som är direkt involverade i säkerheten för IKT-verksamhet, inbegripet för

i) 

upptäckt och övervakning av cyberhot,

ii) 

upptäckt av onormal verksamhet,

iii) 

sårbarhetshantering,

c) 

inrätta, genomföra och driva tekniska, organisatoriska och operativa mekanismer för att stödja processen för hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter, inbegripet mekanismer för att möjliggöra en snabb upptäckt av onormal verksamhet och onormalt beteende i enlighet med artikel 23 i denna förordning,

▼C1

d) 

bevara all bevisning som rör IKT-relaterade incidenter under en period som inte ska vara längre än nödvändigt för de ändamål för vilka uppgifterna samlas in och står i proportion till hur kritiska de berörda affärsfunktionerna, stödprocesserna och IKT- och informationstillgångarna är, i enlighet med artikel 8.2 i kommissionens delegerade förordning (EU) 2024/1772 ( 2 ) och med tillämpliga lagringskrav i enlighet med unionsrätten,

▼B

e) 

inrätta och genomföra mekanismer för att analysera betydande eller återkommande IKT-relaterade incidenter och mönster i antalet och förekomsten av IKT-relaterade incidenter.

Vid tillämpning av led d ska finansiella entiteter bevara den bevisning som avses i det ledet på ett säkert sätt.
EULAW Artikel 23 Upptäckt av onormal verksamhet och kriterier för upptäckt och hantering av IKT-relaterade incidenter
-
EULAW Artikel 31 IKT-riskhantering
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Skydd och förebyggande
-
EULAW Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
EULAW Artikel 18 Klassificering av IKT-relaterade incidenter och cyberhot
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
EULAW Artikel 23 Rapporteringsskyldigheter
-
EULAW Artikel 9 Skydd och förebyggande
-
EULAW Artikel 14 Kommunikation
-
EULAW Artikel 18 Klassificering av IKT-relaterade incidenter och cyberhot
-
EULAW Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
EULAW Artikel 23 Rapporteringsskyldigheter
-
EULAW Artikel 9 4

4.   Som en del av den IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1 ska finansiella entiteter

a)

utarbeta och dokumentera riktlinjer för informationssäkerhet där det fastställs regler för att skydda tillgängligheten, äktheten, integriteten och konfidentialiteten hos data, informationstillgångar och IKT-tillgångar, inbegripet hos deras kunder, när så är tillämpligt,

b)

enligt en riskbaserad strategi upprätta en sund struktur för förvaltning av nätverk och infrastruktur med hjälp av lämpliga tekniker, metoder och protokoll, vilket kan inbegripa införande av automatiserade mekanismer för att isolera berörda informationstillgångar vid cyberangrepp,

c)

genomföra strategier för att begränsa den fysiska eller logiska åtkomsten till informationstillgångar och IKT-tillgångar till enbart det som krävs för legitima och godkända funktioner och verksamheter, och för detta ändamål fastställa en uppsättning strategier, förfaranden och kontroller för åtkomsträttigheter och säkerställa en sund förvaltning av dessa,

d)

genomföra strategier och protokoll för starka äkthetsmekanismer, baserade på relevanta standarder och särskilda kontrollsystem, samt skyddsåtgärder för kryptografiska nycklar där data krypteras baserat på resultat från godkända processer för klassificering och IKT-riskbedömning,

e)

genomföra dokumenterade strategier, förfaranden och kontroller för hantering av IKT-förändringar, inbegripet ändringar av programvara, maskinvara, fasta programvarukomponenter, system eller säkerhetsparametrar, som bygger på en riskbedömningsmetod och är en integrerad del av den finansiella entitetens övergripande förändringshanteringsprocess, för att säkerställa att alla ändringar av IKT-system registreras, testas, bedöms, godkänns, genomförs och verifieras på ett kontrollerat sätt,

f)

ha lämpliga och heltäckande dokumenterade strategier för programfixar och uppdateringar.

Vid tillämpning av första stycket led b ska finansiella entiteter utforma infrastrukturen för nätanslutning på ett sätt som gör att den omedelbart kan avskiljas eller segmenteras i syfte att minimera och förhindra spridning, särskilt för sammanlänkade finansiella processer.

Vid tillämpning av första stycket led e ska processen för hantering av IKT-förändringar godkännas av lämpliga ledningsnivåer och ska ha särskilda protokoll på plats
EULAW Artikel 14 1

1.   Som en del av den IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1 ska finansiella entiteter ha kriskommunikationsplaner som gör det möjligt att på ett ansvarsfullt sätt informera kunder och motparter samt allmänheten om åtminstone allvarliga IKT-relaterade incidenter eller sårbarheter, beroende på vad som är lämpligt.
EULAW Artikel 14 2

2.   Som en del av IKT-riskhanteringsramen ska finansiella entiteter genomföra kommunikationsstrategier för intern personal och externa berörda parter. I sina kommunikationsstrategier för personalen ska hänsyn tas till behovet av att skilja mellan personal som deltar i IKT-riskhantering, framför allt personalen med ansvar för åtgärder och återställande, och personal som behöver information.
EULAW Artikel 14 3

3.   Minst en person i den finansiella entiteten ska ha i uppgift att genomföra kommunikationsstrategin för IKT-relaterade incidenter och fungera som talesperson gentemot allmänheten och medierna i detta syfte.
EULAW Artikel 18 1

1.   Finansiella entiteter ska klassificera IKT-relaterade incidenter och fastställa deras inverkan baserat på följande kriterier:

a)

Antalet och/eller betydelsen av kunder eller finansiella motparter som påverkas, och i tillämpliga fall, mängden eller antalet transaktioner som påverkas av den IKT-relaterade incidenten, och om anseendet har påverkats av den IKT-relaterade incidenten.

b)

Den IKT-relaterade incidentens varaktighet, inklusive driftstopp.

c)

Den geografiska spridningen med avseende på de områden som påverkas av den IKT-relaterade incidenten, särskilt om den påverkar fler än två medlemsstater.

d)

De dataförluster som den IKT-relaterade incidenten medför, vad gäller tillgänglighet, äkthet, integritet eller konfidentialitet vad gäller datan

e)

De berörda tjänsternas kritikalitet, inbegripet den finansiella entitetens transaktioner och verksamhet.

f)

De ekonomiska effekterna, särskilt direkta och indirekta kostnader och förluster, av den IKT-relaterade incidenten i absoluta och relativa tal.
EULAW Artikel 18 2

2.   Finansiella entiteter ska klassificera cyberhot som betydande baserat på de hotade tjänsternas kritikalitet, inbegripet den finansiella entitetens transaktioner och verksamhet, antalet och/eller betydelsen av kunder eller finansiella motparter som hotas och den geografiska spridningen av de hotade områdena.

Länkade ärenden

Länkar
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Respond
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Loss of Accountability / Attribution
blocks Excessive or Unauthorized Privilege
blocks Unauthorized Privilege Elevation
blocks Unauthorized Access
blocks Loss, Theft or Damage of Assets
blocks Unauthorized Modification / Loss of System Integrity
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 Exposure from Unaddressed Vulnerabilities
blocks System / Service Compromise
blocks Failure to Support Business / Mission Objectives
blocks Unaddressed Security / Compliance Exposure
blocks Unperformed / Unowned Control Responsibilities
blocks Uncontrolled Internal Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Uncontrolled Third-Party Security / Privacy Exposure
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Loss of Investigative / Evidentiary Capability
blocks Delayed Containment / Increased Incident Impact
blocks Incident Persistence / Recurrence
blocks Incident Response / Recovery Cost
blocks Undetected / Delayed Detection of Adverse Activity
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-Party Cybersecurity Compromise / Exposure
blocks Third-Party Physical Security Disruption / Exposure
blocks Sub-Tier / Fourth-Party Supply Chain Exposure
blocks Third-Party Legal / Compliance Exposure
blocks Harm from Unauthorized / Unintended Product or Service Use
blocks Third-Party Dependency Failure
is related to relative Control Weighting = 10
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
blocks Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care
blocks Recovery Failure / Unacceptable Recovery Delay
blocks OT Safety / Process Availability Failure
blocks Loss of Confidentiality
blocks Loss of Data Integrity
blocks Loss of Data / Service Availability
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 Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning
blocks Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct
blocks Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct
blocks Economic Shock / Market Disruption
blocks Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention
blocks Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption
blocks Infrastructure Failure / Degradation
blocks OPS-07.02B
blocks OPS-13.03AC
blocks OPS-18.01B
blocks OPS-19.01B
blocks OPS-20.01B
blocks OPS-21.01B
blocks OPS-30.01B
blocks IAM-01.02B
blocks SIM-02.01B
blocks SIM-03.03AC
is blocked by IRO-06 Incident Handling – Assessment Procedure
blocks IR-04 Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [L] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [M] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [H] Incident Handling
blocks IR-04 [P] Incident Handling
blocks 03.03.04 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
blocks 03.06.01 Incident Handling
blocks 03.06.02 Incident Monitoring, Reporting, and Response Assistance
blocks 03.06.05 Incident Response Plan
blocks GV.SC-08 Relevant suppliers and other third parties are included in incident planning, response, and recovery activities
blocks DE.AE Adverse Event Analysis
blocks DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
blocks DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources
blocks DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
blocks DE.AE-06 Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff and tools
blocks DE.AE-08 Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
blocks RS RESPOND
blocks RS.MA Incident Management
blocks RS.MA-01 The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is declared
blocks RS.MA-02 Incident reports are triaged and validated
blocks RS.MA-04 Incidents are escalated or elevated as needed
blocks RS.AN Incident Analysis
blocks RS.AN-06 Actions performed during an investigation are recorded, and the records' integrity and provenance are preserved
blocks RS.CO Incident Response Reporting and Communication
blocks RS.CO-02 Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents
blocks RS.CO-03 Information is shared with designated internal and external stakeholders
blocks RS.MI Incident Mitigation
blocks RS.MI-01 Incidents are contained
blocks RS.MI-02 Incidents are eradicated
blocks RC.RP-06 The end of incident recovery is declared based on criteria, and incident-related documentation is completed
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.