+Conformity Assessment

Conformity Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to conduct assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist

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

∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review

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

∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar

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

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team

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

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring

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

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to assigned cybersecurity and/or data protection controls to comply with specific compliance requirements.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 CPL 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 assessments to demonstrate security, compliance and/or resilience capability conformity with applicable cybersecurity and data protection laws, regulations and/or 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. Übersicht

Bezeichnung Standard

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Related Regulations

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen
Source Anforderung

3. Related Regulations

Regulations
Source Regulierung
EULAW Article 16 Obligations of providers of high-risk AI systems

Article 16

Obligations of providers of high-risk AI systems

Providers of high-risk AI systems shall:

(a)

ensure that their high-risk AI systems are compliant with the requirements set out in Section 2;

(b)

indicate on the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, as applicable, their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, the address at which they can be contacted;

(c)

have a quality management system in place which complies with Article 17;

(d)

keep the documentation referred to in Article 18;

(e)

when under their control, keep the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems as referred to in Article 19;

(f)

ensure that the high-risk AI system undergoes the relevant conformity assessment procedure as referred to in Article 43, prior to its being placed on the market or put into service;

(g)

draw up an EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 47;

(h)

affix the CE marking to the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, to indicate conformity with this Regulation, in accordance with Article 48;

(i)

comply with the registration obligations referred to in Article 49(1);

(j)

take the necessary corrective actions and provide information as required in Article 20;

(k)

upon a reasoned request of a national competent authority, demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2;

(l)

ensure that the high-risk AI system complies with accessibility requirements in accordance with Directives (EU) 2016/2102 and (EU) 2019/882.

EULAW Article 43 Conformity assessment

Article 43

Conformity assessment

1.   For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall opt for one of the following conformity assessment procedures based on:

(a)

the internal control referred to in Annex VI; or

(b)

the assessment of the quality management system and the assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.

In demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII where:

(a)

harmonised standards referred to in Article 40 do not exist, and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available;

(b)

the provider has not applied, or has applied only part of, the harmonised standard;

(c)

the common specifications referred to in point (a) exist, but the provider has not applied them;

(d)

one or more of the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction, and only on the part of the standard that was restricted.

For the purposes of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, where the high-risk AI system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities or by Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 74(8) or (9), as applicable, shall act as a notified body.

2.   For high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control as referred to in Annex VI, which does not provide for the involvement of a notified body.

3.   For high-risk AI systems covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, the provider shall follow the relevant conformity assessment procedure as required under those legal acts. The requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter shall apply to those high-risk AI systems and shall be part of that assessment. Points 4.3., 4.4., 4.5. and the fifth paragraph of point 4.6 of Annex VII shall also apply.

For the purposes of that assessment, notified bodies which have been notified under those legal acts shall be entitled to control the conformity of the high-risk AI systems with the requirements set out in Section 2, provided that the compliance of those notified bodies with requirements laid down in Article 31(4), (5), (10) and (11) has been assessed in the context of the notification procedure under those legal acts.

Where a legal act listed in Section A of Annex I enables the product manufacturer to opt out from a third-party conformity assessment, provided that that manufacturer has applied all harmonised standards covering all the relevant requirements, that manufacturer may use that option only if it has also applied harmonised standards or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, covering all requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter.

4.   High-risk AI systems that have already been subject to a conformity assessment procedure shall undergo a new conformity assessment procedure in the event of a substantial modification, regardless of whether the modified system is intended to be further distributed or continues to be used by the current deployer.

For high-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service, changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance that have been pre-determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment and are part of the information contained in the technical documentation referred to in point 2(f) of Annex IV, shall not constitute a substantial modification.

5.   The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend Annexes VI and VII by updating them in light of technical progress.

6.   The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimising the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems, as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies.

EULAW Article 10 Enhancing skills in a cyber resilient digital environment

Article 10

Enhancing skills in a cyber resilient digital environment

For the purposes of this Regulation and in order to respond to the needs of professionals in support of the implementation of this Regulation, Member States with, where appropriate, the support of the Commission, the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre and ENISA, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States in the education field, shall promote measures and strategies aiming to:

(a)

develop cybersecurity skills and create organisational and technological tools to ensure sufficient availability of skilled professionals in order to support the activities of the market surveillance authorities and conformity assessment bodies;

(b)

increase collaboration between the private sector, economic operators, including via re-skilling or up-skilling for manufacturers’ employees, consumers, training providers as well as public administrations, thereby expanding the options for young people to access jobs in the cybersecurity sector.

EULAW Article 13 Obligations of manufacturers

Article 13

Obligations of manufacturers

1.   When placing a product with digital elements on the market, manufacturers shall ensure that it has been designed, developed and produced in accordance with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part I of Annex I.

2.   For the purpose of complying with paragraph 1, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the cybersecurity risks associated with a product with digital elements and take the outcome of that assessment into account during the planning, design, development, production, delivery and maintenance phases of the product with digital elements with a view to minimising cybersecurity risks, preventing incidents and minimising their impact, including in relation to the health and safety of users.

3.   The cybersecurity risk assessment shall be documented and updated as appropriate during a support period to be determined in accordance with paragraph 8 of this Article. That cybersecurity risk assessment shall comprise at least an analysis of cybersecurity risks based on the intended purpose and reasonably foreseeable use, as well as the conditions of use, of the product with digital elements, such as the operational environment or the assets to be protected, taking into account the length of time the product is expected to be in use. The cybersecurity risk assessment shall indicate whether and, if so in what manner, the security requirements set out in Part I, point (2), of Annex I are applicable to the relevant product with digital elements and how those requirements are implemented as informed by the cybersecurity risk assessment. It shall also indicate how the manufacturer is to apply Part I, point (1), of Annex I and the vulnerability handling requirements set out in Part II of Annex I.

4.   When placing a product with digital elements on the market, the manufacturer shall include the cybersecurity risk assessment referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article in the technical documentation required pursuant to Article 31 and Annex VII. For products with digital elements as referred to in Article 12, which are also subject to other Union legal acts, the cybersecurity risk assessment may be part of the risk assessment required by those Union legal acts. Where certain essential cybersecurity requirements are not applicable to the product with digital elements, the manufacturer shall include a clear justification to that effect in that technical documentation.

5.   For the purpose of complying with paragraph 1, manufacturers shall exercise due diligence when integrating components sourced from third parties so that those components do not compromise the cybersecurity of the product with digital elements, including when integrating components of free and open-source software that have not been made available on the market in the course of a commercial activity.

6.   Manufacturers shall, upon identifying a vulnerability in a component, including in an open source-component, which is integrated in the product with digital elements report the vulnerability to the person or entity manufacturing or maintaining the component, and address and remediate the vulnerability in accordance with the vulnerability handling requirements set out in Part II of Annex I. Where manufacturers have developed a software or hardware modification to address the vulnerability in that component, they shall share the relevant code or documentation with the person or entity manufacturing or maintaining the component, where appropriate in a machine-readable format.

7.   The manufacturers shall systematically document, in a manner that is proportionate to the nature and the cybersecurity risks, relevant cybersecurity aspects concerning the products with digital elements, including vulnerabilities of which they become aware and any relevant information provided by third parties, and shall, where applicable, update the cybersecurity risk assessment of the products.

8.   Manufacturers shall ensure, when placing a product with digital elements on the market, and for the support period, that vulnerabilities of that product, including its components, are handled effectively and in accordance with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part II of Annex I.

Manufacturers shall determine the support period so that it reflects the length of time during which the product is expected to be in use, taking into account, in particular, reasonable user expectations, the nature of the product, including its intended purpose, as well as relevant Union law determining the lifetime of products with digital elements. When determining the support period, manufacturers may also take into account the support periods of products with digital elements offering a similar functionality placed on the market by other manufacturers, the availability of the operating environment, the support periods of integrated components that provide core functions and are sourced from third parties as well as relevant guidance provided by the dedicated administrative cooperation group (ADCO) established pursuant to Article 52(15) and the Commission. The matters to be taken into account in order to determine the support period shall be considered in a manner that ensures proportionality.

Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, the support period shall be at least five years. Where the product with digital elements is expected to be in use for less than five years, the support period shall correspond to the expected use time.

Taking into account ADCO recommendations as referred to in Article 52(16), the Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 61 to supplement this Regulation by specifying the minimum support period for specific product categories where the market surveillance data suggests inadequate support periods.

Manufacturers shall include the information that was taken into account to determine the support period of a product with digital elements in the technical documentation as set out in Annex VII.

Manufacturers shall have appropriate policies and procedures, including coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies, referred to in Part II, point (5), of Annex I to process and remediate potential vulnerabilities in the product with digital elements reported from internal or external sources.

9.   Manufacturers shall ensure that each security update, as referred to in Part II, point (8), of Annex I, which has been made available to users during the support period, remains available after it has been issued for a minimum of 10 years or for the remainder of the support period, whichever is longer.

10.   Where a manufacturer has placed subsequent substantially modified versions of a software product on the market, that manufacturer may ensure compliance with the essential cybersecurity requirement set out in Part II, point (2), of Annex I only for the version that it has last placed on the market, provided that the users of the versions that were previously placed on the market have access to the version last placed on the market free of charge and do not incur additional costs to adjust the hardware and software environment in which they use the original version of that product.

11.   Manufacturers may maintain public software archives enhancing user access to historical versions. In those cases, users shall be clearly informed in an easily accessible manner about risks associated with using unsupported software.

12.   Before placing a product with digital elements on the market, manufacturers shall draw up the technical documentation referred to in Article 31.

They shall carry out the chosen conformity assessment procedures as referred to in Article 32 or have them carried out.

Where compliance of the product with digital elements with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part I of Annex I and of the processes put in place by the manufacturer with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Part II of Annex I has been demonstrated by that conformity assessment procedure, manufacturers shall draw up the EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 28 and affix the CE marking in accordance with Article 30.

13.   Manufacturers shall keep the technical documentation and the EU declaration of conformity at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer.

14.   Manufacturers shall ensure that procedures are in place for products with digital elements that are part of a series of production to remain in conformity with this Regulation. Manufacturers shall adequately take into account changes in the development and production process or in the design or characteristics of the product with digital elements and changes in the harmonised standards, European cybersecurity certification schemes or common specifications as referred to in Article 27 by reference to which the conformity of the product with digital elements is declared or by application of which its conformity is verified.

15.   Manufacturers shall ensure that their products with digital elements bear a type, batch or serial number or other element allowing their identification, or, where that is not possible, that that information is provided on their packaging or in a document accompanying the product with digital elements.

16.   Manufacturers shall indicate the name, registered trade name or registered trademark of the manufacturer, and the postal address, email address or other digital contact details, as well as, where applicable, the website where the manufacturer can be contacted, on the product with digital elements, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the product with digital elements. That information shall also be included in the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II. The contact details shall be in a language which can be easily understood by users and market surveillance authorities.

17.   For the purposes of this Regulation, manufacturers shall designate a single point of contact to enable users to communicate directly and rapidly with them, including in order to facilitate reporting on vulnerabilities of the product with digital elements.

Manufacturers shall ensure that the single point of contact is easily identifiable by the users. They shall also include the single point of contact in the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II.

The single point of contact shall allow users to choose their preferred means of communication and shall not limit such means to automated tools.

18.   Manufacturers shall ensure that products with digital elements are accompanied by the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II, in paper or electronic form. Such information and instructions shall be provided in a language which can be easily understood by users and market surveillance authorities. They shall be clear, understandable, intelligible and legible. They shall allow for the secure installation, operation and use of products with digital elements. Manufacturers shall keep the information and instructions to the user set out in Annex II at the disposal of users and market surveillance authorities for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer. Where such information and instructions are provided online, manufacturers shall ensure that they are accessible, user-friendly and available online for at least 10 years after the product with digital elements has been placed on the market or for the support period, whichever is longer.

19.   Manufacturers shall ensure that the end date of the support period referred to in paragraph 8, including at least the month and the year, is clearly and understandably specified at the time of purchase in an easily accessible manner and, where applicable, on the product with digital elements, its packaging or by digital means.

Where technically feasible in light of the nature of the product with digital elements, manufacturers shall display a notification to users informing them that their product with digital elements has reached the end of its support period.

20.   Manufacturers shall either provide a copy of the EU declaration of conformity or a simplified EU declaration of conformity with the product with digital elements. Where a simplified EU declaration of conformity is provided, it shall contain the exact internet address at which the full EU declaration of conformity can be accessed.

21.   From the placing on the market and for the support period, manufacturers who know or have reason to believe that the product with digital elements or the processes put in place by the manufacturer are not in conformity with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Annex I shall immediately take the corrective measures necessary to bring that product with digital elements or the manufacturer’s processes into conformity, or to withdraw or recall the product, as appropriate.

22.   Manufacturers shall, upon a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, provide that authority, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, with all the information and documentation, in paper or electronic form, necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the product with digital elements and of the processes put in place by the manufacturer with the essential cybersecurity requirements set out in Annex I. Manufacturers shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any measures taken to eliminate the cybersecurity risks posed by the product with digital elements which they have placed on the market.

23.   A manufacturer that ceases its operations and, as a result, is not able to comply with this Regulation shall inform, before the cessation of operations takes effect, the relevant market surveillance authorities as well as, by any means available and to the extent possible, the users of the relevant products with digital elements placed on the market, of the impending cessation of operations.

24.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts taking into account European or international standards and best practices, specify the format and elements of the software bill of materials referred to in Part II, point (1), of Annex I. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 62(2).

25.   In order to assess the dependence of Member States and of the Union as a whole on software components and in particular on components qualifying as free and open-source software, ADCO may decide to conduct a Union wide dependency assessment for specific categories of products with digital elements. For that purpose, market surveillance authorities may request manufacturers of such categories of products with digital elements to provide the relevant software bills of materials as referred to in Part II, point (1), of Annex I. On the basis of such information, the market surveillance authorities may provide ADCO with anonymised and aggregated information about software dependencies. ADCO shall submit a report on the results of the dependency assessment to the Cooperation Group established pursuant to Article 14 of Directive (EU) 2022/2555.

EULAW Article 24 Obligations of open-source software stewards

Article 24

Obligations of open-source software stewards

1.   Open-source software stewards shall put in place and document in a verifiable manner a cybersecurity policy to foster the development of a secure product with digital elements as well as an effective handling of vulnerabilities by the developers of that product. That policy shall also foster the voluntary reporting of vulnerabilities as laid down in Article 15 by the developers of that product and take into account the specific nature of the open-source software steward and the legal and organisational arrangements to which it is subject. That policy shall, in particular, include aspects related to documenting, addressing and remediating vulnerabilities and promote the sharing of information concerning discovered vulnerabilities within the open-source community.

2.   Open-source software stewards shall cooperate with the market surveillance authorities, at their request, with a view to mitigating the cybersecurity risks posed by a product with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software.

Further to a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, open-source software stewards shall provide that authority, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, with the documentation referred to in paragraph 1, in paper or electronic form.

3.   The obligations laid down in Article 14(1) shall apply to open-source software stewards to the extent that they are involved in the development of the products with digital elements. The obligations laid down in Article 14(3) and (8) shall apply to open-source software stewards to the extent that severe incidents having an impact on the security of products with digital elements affect network and information systems provided by the open-source software stewards for the development of such products.

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
Linktyp Issue
is related to Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 09
is related to Process
is related to Govern
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks Inability to maintain individual accountability
blocks Improper assignment of privileged functions
blocks Privilege escalation
blocks Unauthorized access
blocks Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s)
blocks Loss of integrity through unauthorized changes
blocks Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences
blocks Business interruption
blocks Data loss / corruption
blocks Reduction in productivity
blocks Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to technical attack
blocks Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non‐technical attack
blocks Loss of revenue
blocks Cancelled contract
blocks Diminished competitive advantage
blocks Diminished reputation
blocks Fines and judgements
blocks Unmitigated vulnerabilities
blocks System compromise
blocks Inability to support business processes
blocks Incorrect controls scoping
blocks Lack of roles & responsibilities
blocks Inadequate internal practices
blocks Inadequate third-party practices
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Illegal content or abusive action
blocks Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks Improper response to incidents
blocks Ineffective remediation actions
blocks Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks Inability to maintain situational awareness
blocks Lack of a security-minded workforce
blocks Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks Third-party physical security exposure
blocks Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks Use of product / service
blocks Reliance on the third-party
  • 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.

Impressum Deutsch Englisch