Skip to main content

AST-16: Asset Scope Classification

AST 8 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to determine security, compliance and resilience control applicability by identifying, assigning and documenting the appropriate asset scope categorization for all Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and personnel (internal and third-parties).

Renumbered: Formerly AST-04.1 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, AST-16 was Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Usage. That control is now AST-27.

Control Question: Does the organization determine security, compliance and resilience control applicability by identifying, assigning and documenting the appropriate asset scope categorization for all Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and personnel (internal and third-parties)?

General (37)
US (14)
EMEA (6)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 AM-05.01B.2
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 mp.info.2
EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 Article 40(1) Article 40(2)
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.3.3.17 3.3.3.18
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 11.7.2 12.1.1 12.1.3
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-1-5
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 36 36(a) 36(b) 36(c) 36(d) 37
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.4.4 4.4.4.1 8.1.2.4
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.04.11.A 03.04.11.B

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

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

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 determine security, compliance and resilience control applicability by identifying, assigning and documenting the appropriate asset scope categorization for all Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and personnel (internal and third-parties).

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.

Assessment Objectives

  1. AST-16_A01 system hardware components to be marked indicating the impact level or classification level of the information permitted to be processed, stored, or transmitted by the hardware component are defined.
  2. AST-16_A02 system hardware components are marked indicating the impact level or classification level of the information permitted to be processed, stored, or transmitted by the hardware component.

Evidence Requirements

E-AST-02 Asset Scoping Guidance

Documented evidence of an asset scoping guidance. This is program-level documentation in the form of a runbook, playbook or a similar format provides guidance on defining in-scope Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) (including third-parties).

Asset Management
E-CPL-02 Defined Compliance Scope (DCS)

Documented evidence of a formal scoping document that identifies applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations for the organization. Defines the affected Lines of Business (LOB), internal / external stakeholders and facilities for the specific scope of compliance obligations.

Compliance

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)

Small

  • Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)

Medium

  • Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)

Large

  • Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)

Enterprise

  • Unified Scoping Guide (https://unified-scoping-guide.com)

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.