Skip to main content

AST-07.1: Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) Ownership Assignment

AST 8 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to ensure Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) ownership responsibilities are assigned, tracked and managed at a team, individual, or responsible organization level to establish a common understanding of requirements for asset protection.

Renumbered: Formerly AST-03 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization ensure asset ownership responsibilities are assigned, tracked and managed at a team, individual, or responsible organization level to establish a common understanding of requirements for asset protection?

General (21)
US (7)
EMEA (7)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 AM-03.01B.3 AM-04.01B.3 IAM-06.02AC
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 op.pl.2 op.exp.1
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 4.2(b)(iv)
EMEA UK CAF 4.0 A3.a (point 4)
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.3.3-18 3.5-54
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 2-1-1-2
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-7-3-1
APAC (7)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-1071
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 GV.PO.S5
APAC Japan ISMAP 8.1.1.5 8.1.2 8.1.2.1 8.1.2.2
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 A10-A2(b)
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 3.4.10.C.01 3.4.10.C.02
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 4.1.1(a) 12.1.1(a)
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 3.3.1(c)
Americas (3)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 B.1.2-1 B.1.2-2
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 5.9-BP1 5.9-BP2
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.09.02.A.03

Capability Maturity Model

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

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers). ▪ Data/process owners for business-critical assets are documented and are reviewed as part of the annual asset inventories. ▪ Annual IT asset inventories validate or update stakeholders /owners.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure asset ownership responsibilities are assigned, tracked and managed at a team, individual, or responsible organization level to establish a common understanding of requirements for asset protection.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Asset Management (AST) 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

Asset Management (AST) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

Assessment Objectives

  1. AST-07.1_A01 the name, position and/or role of the team, individual or responsible organization assigned ownership of Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) is documented.
  2. AST-07.1_A02 Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) ownership assignments are tracked and updated when ownership changes.

Evidence Requirements

E-AST-01 IT Asset Management (ITAM)

Documented evidence of an IT Asset Management (ITAM) program that addresses the due diligence and due care activities associated with maintaining both secure, compliance and resilient Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).

Asset Management
E-CPL-03 Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) / Controls Responsibility Matrix (CRM)

Documented evidence of a Controls Responsibility Matrix (CRM), or similar documentation, that identifies the stakeholder involved in executing assigned controls (e.g., Responsible, Accountable, Supportive, Consulted & Informed (RASCI) matrix).

Compliance

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

Small

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

Medium

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

Large

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

Enterprise

  • IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
  • Configuration Management Database (CMDB)

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.