+Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
---+Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Vendor due diligence checklist ∙ Third-party security questionnaire (e.g., CAIQ, SIG)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Vendor security questionnaire (CAIQ or SIG) ∙ Third-party risk assessment prior to outsourcing
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Third-party risk management program ∙ Vendor security assessments with contractual security obligations ∙ Contract security requirements for outsourced functions
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Third-party risk management (TPRM) program ∙ Vendor SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification requirements ∙ Contractual security and compliance obligations
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise TPRM program with automated vendor risk assessment ∙ Third-party risk ratings (e.g., BitSight, SecurityScorecard) ∙ Contractual oversight and audit rights for outsourced functions
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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned 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 ensure organizations involved in developing, implementing and/or maintaining Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) provide assurance of internal oversight capabilities that demonstrate: (1) Governance of internal controls; (2) Risk management, including analysis and mitigation activities; and (3) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
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. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Standard |
|
Outsourcing Non-Essential Functions or Services
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify non-core IT functions suitable for outsourcing (e.g., email hosting)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Documented list of outsourced non-essential functions with security requirements
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Outsourcing decisions aligned with business strategy and risk assessment ∙ Security requirements in outsourcing contracts
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Sourcing strategy identifying outsourceable non-essential functions ∙ Third-party risk assessment before outsourcing ∙ Contractual security requirements
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise sourcing governance aligned with business strategy and C-SCRM ∙ Outsourcing risk assessments and regulatory notifications where required
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
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) 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 SEA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SEA 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 SEA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Secure engineering and architecture 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 define entity-specific secure engineering practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the entity's TAASD. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel align secure engineering practices with the entity's broader IT architecture practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use secure engineering practices to influence Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC).
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 identify non-essential functions or services that are capable of being outsourced to external service providers and align with the organization's enterprise architecture and security standards.
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 28 1
1. Finansiella entiteter ska hantera IKT-tredjepartsrisker som en integrerad del av IKT-risken inom sin IKT-riskhanteringsram som avses i artikel 6.1, och i enlighet med följande principer:
|
a)
|
De finansiella entiteter som har ingått ett kontraktsmässigt arrangemang om användningen av IKT-tjänster för att bedriva sin affärsverksamhet ska alltid ha det fulla ansvaret för uppfyllandet och fullgörandet av alla skyldigheter enligt denna förordning och tillämplig rätt avseende finansiella tjänster.
|
|
b)
|
Finansiella entiteters hantering av IKT-tredjepartsrisker ska genomföras med hänsyn till proportionalitetsprincipen, med beaktande av
|
i)
|
IKT-relaterade beroendens karaktär, omfattning, komplexitet och betydelse,
|
|
ii)
|
de risker som uppstår till följd av kontraktsmässiga arrangemang om användningen av IKT-tjänster som har ingåtts med tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster, med hänsyn till den kritikaliteten eller betydelsen av respektive tjänst, process eller funktion, och den potentiella inverkan på kontinuiteten och tillgängligheten hos finansiella tjänster och verksamheter, på individuell nivå och på koncernnivå.
|
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 29 2
2. Om de kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen om användning av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner inbegriper möjligheten att en tredjepartsleverantör av IKT-tjänster lägger ut IKT-tjänster som stöder kritisk eller viktig funktion på underentreprenad till andra tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster, ska finansiella entiteter väga de fördelar och risker som kan uppstå i samband med en sådan underentreprenad, särskilt när det gäller en IKT-underleverantör som är etablerad i ett tredjeland.
Om de kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen gäller IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ska finansiella entiteter vederbörligen ta hänsyn till de insolvensrättsliga bestämmelser som skulle vara tillämpliga om IKT-tjänsteleverantören går i konkurs samt eventuella begränsningar som kan uppstå när det gäller skyndsam återställning av den finansiella entitetens data.
Om kontraktsmässiga arrangemang om användning av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ingås med en tredjepartsleverantör av IKT-tjänster som är etablerad i ett tredjeland ska finansiella entiteter utöver de hänsynstaganden som avses i andra stycket även beakta överensstämmelsen med unionens dataskyddsregler och den faktiska efterlevnaden av rätten i det tredjelandet.
Om de kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen om användning av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner medger underentreprenad, ska finansiella entiteter bedöma om och hur potentiellt långa eller komplexa underentreprenadskedjor kan påverka deras förmåga att till fullo övervaka de avtalade funktionerna och den behöriga myndighetens förmåga att effektivt övervaka den finansiella entiteten i detta avseende.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 1
1. Rättigheterna och skyldigheterna för den finansiella entiteten och tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster ska vara tydligt fördelade och skriftligen angivna. Det fullständiga avtalet ska omfatta servicenivåavtalen och dokumenteras i ett skriftligt dokument som parterna ska ha tillgång till på papper eller i ett dokument med ett annat nedladdningsbart, varaktigt och tillgängligt format.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 2
2. De kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen för användning av IKT-tjänster ska innehålla åtminstone följande delar:
|
a)
|
En tydlig och fullständig beskrivning av alla funktioner och IKT-tjänster som ska tillhandahållas av tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster, med uppgift om huruvida underentreprenad av en IKT-tjänst som stöder en kritisk eller viktig funktion eller väsentliga delar därav, är tillåten och, när så är fallet, de villkor som gäller för sådan underentreprenad.
|
|
b)
|
De platser, nämligen regioner eller länder, där de funktioner och IKT-tjänster som har utkontrakterats eller lagts ut på underentreprenad ska tillhandahållas och var uppgifterna ska behandlas, inklusive lagringsplatsen, och ett krav på att tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster på förhand ska underrätta den finansiella entiteten om den planerar att ändra sådana platser.
|
|
c)
|
Bestämmelser om tillgänglighet, äkthet, integritet och konfidentialitet vad gäller skydd av data, inbegripet personuppgifter.
|
|
d)
|
Bestämmelser om säkerställande av åtkomst, återställande och återlämnande i ett lättillgängligt format av personuppgifter och andra uppgifter än personuppgifter som behandlas av den finansiella entiteten i händelse av insolvens, resolution eller nedläggning av verksamheten vad avser tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster, eller i händelse av uppsägning av de kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen.
|
|
e)
|
Beskrivningar av servicenivå, inbegripet uppdateringar och revideringar av dessa.
|
|
f)
|
Skyldigheten för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster att tillhandahålla assistans till den finansiella entiteten utan extra kostnad, eller till en kostnad som fastställs på förhand, när en IKT-incident med anknytning till den IKT-tjänst som tillhandahålls den finansiella entiteten inträffar.
|
|
g)
|
Skyldigheten för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster att samarbeta fullt ut med de behöriga myndigheterna och resolutionsmyndigheterna för den finansiella entiteten, inbegripet personer som har utsetts av dem.
|
|
h)
|
Uppsägningsrätt och tillhörande minsta uppsägningstid för uppsägning av det kontraktsmässiga arrangemanget, i enlighet med de behöriga myndigheternas och resolutionsmyndigheternas förväntningar.
|
|
i)
|
Villkoren för deltagande av tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster i finansiella entiteters program för medvetenhet om IKT-säkerhet och utbildning om digital operativ motståndskraft i enlighet med artikel 13.6.
|
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 3
3. De kontraktsmässiga arrangemangen om användning av IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner ska, utöver de delar som avses i punkt 2, innehålla åtminstone följande:
|
a)
|
Beskrivningar av fullständig servicenivå, inklusive uppdateringar och revideringar av dessa, med exakta kvantitativa och kvalitativa prestationsmål inom de överenskomna servicenivåerna för att göra det möjligt för den finansiella entiteten att effektivt övervaka IKT-tjänster och göra det möjligt att utan onödigt dröjsmål vidta lämpliga korrigerande åtgärder när överenskomna servicenivåer inte uppnås.
|
|
b)
|
Anmälningsperioder och rapporteringsskyldigheter för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster till den finansiella entiteten, inbegripet underrättelse om varje händelse som kan ha en väsentlig inverkan på IKT-tredjepartsleverantörens förmåga att effektivt tillhandahålla IKT-tjänster som stöder kritiska eller viktiga funktioner i linje med överenskomna servicenivåer.
|
|
c)
|
Krav på att tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster ska genomföra och testa beredskapsplaner för verksamheten och ha infört IKT-säkerhetsåtgärder, IKT-verktyg och IKT-strategier som ger en lämplig säkerhetsnivå vid tillhandahållande av tjänster från den finansiella entitetens sida i enlighet med dess regelverk.
|
|
d)
|
Skyldigheten för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster att delta och fullt ut samarbeta i den finansiella entitetens hotbildsstyrda penetrationstestning enligt artiklarna 26 och 27.
|
|
e)
|
Rätten att fortlöpande övervaka prestandan hos tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster, vilket omfattar följande:
|
i)
|
Obegränsad rätt till tillgång till, inspektion och revision för den finansiella entiteten eller en utsedd tredjepart, och för den behöriga myndigheten, och rätt att ta kopior av relevant dokumentation på plats om de är kritiska för verksamheten hos tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster, vars faktiska utövande inte hindras eller begränsas av andra kontraktsmässiga arrangemang eller strategier för genomförande.
|
|
ii)
|
Rätten att komma överens om alternativa garantinivåer om andra kunders rättigheter påverkas.
|
|
iii)
|
Skyldigheten för tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster att samarbeta fullt ut under de inspektioner och revisioner på plats som utförs av de behöriga myndigheterna, den ledande tillsynsmyndigheten, den finansiella entiteten eller en utsedd tredjepart.
|
|
iv)
|
Skyldigheten att tillhandahålla närmare uppgifter om omfattningen, de förfaranden som ska följas och frekvensen för sådana inspektioner och revisioner.
|
|
|
f)
|
Exitstrategier, särskilt inrättande av en obligatorisk lämplig övergångsperiod
|
i)
|
under vilken tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster kommer att fortsätta att tillhandahålla respektive funktioner eller IKT-tjänster i syfte att minska risken för avbrott hos den finansiella entiteten, eller säkerställa en effektiv resolution och omstrukturering av denna,
|
|
ii)
|
som gör det möjligt för den finansiella entiteten att migrera till en annan tredjepartsleverantör av IKT-tjänster eller byta till interna lösningar som är förenliga med komplexiteten hos den tillhandahållna tjänsten.
|
|
Genom undantag från led e får tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster och en finansiell entitet som är ett mikroföretag komma överens om att den finansiella entitetens rätt till tillgång, inspektion och revision kan delegeras till en oberoende tredjepart som utsetts av tredjepartsleverantören av IKT-tjänster, och att den finansiella entiteten när som helst kan begära information och försäkran om IKT-tredjepartsleverantörens prestanda från den tredje parten.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 30 4
4. När finansiella entiteter och tredjepartsleverantörer av IKT-tjänster förhandlar om kontraktsmässiga arrangemang ska de överväga att använda standardavtalsklausuler som har utarbetats av offentliga myndigheter för specifika tjänster.
|
|
EULAW
|
Artikel 21 Riskhanteringsåtgärder för cybersäkerhet
-
|
Länkade ärenden
Länkar
| Länktyp |
Ärende |
|
is related to
|
Annual |
|
is related to
|
relative Control Weighting = 10 |
|
is related to
|
Process |
|
is related to
|
Identify |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL |
|
is related to
|
SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL |
|
blocks
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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 = 07 |
|
is related to
|
Govern |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Authorization / Certification / License |
|
blocks
|
Inability to Demonstrate Due Diligence / Due Care |
|
blocks
|
Unreliable Assurance / Decision Information |
|
blocks
|
Concentration / Single-Point Dependency Failure |
|
blocks
|
Counterfeit / Non-Conforming Component Impact |
|
blocks
|
Loss of Confidentiality |
|
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
|
Malicious Cyber Activity |
|
blocks
|
Dysfunctional Management Practices |
|
blocks
|
Human Error |
|
blocks
|
Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual Change |
|
blocks
|
Data Quality Degradation / Data Poisoning |
|
blocks
|
Fraud, Corruption and/or Intentional Criminal Conduct |
|
blocks
|
Conflict of Interest (COI) / Undue Influence / Insider Misconduct |
|
blocks
|
Economic Shock / Market Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) |
|
blocks
|
Geopolitical Conflict / Government Intervention |
|
blocks
|
Sanctions / Trade Restriction Disruption |
|
blocks
|
Supplier Financial Distress / Insolvency |
|
blocks
|
Workforce Shortage / Loss of Critical Skills / Labor Disruption |
|
is blocked by
|
TPM-05 Security, Compliance & Resilience Outsourcing Limitations – Assessment Procedure |
- 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.
|