Skip to main content

AST-17.1: Control Applicability Boundary Graphical Representation

AST 6 — Medium Identify

Mechanisms exist to ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.

Renumbered: Formerly AST-04.2 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries?

General (9)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC2.2-POF11 CC5.2-POF2
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.04.11.a 03.04.11.b 03.15.02.a.04
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.04.11.a[02] A.03.04.11.b[01] A.03.04.11.b[02]
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) ID.AM-03
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 1.2.3 12.5.2.1 A3.2.5
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 1.2.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 1.2.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 1.2.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 1.2.3 12.5.2.1
US (4)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.04.11.A 03.04.11.B 03.15.02.A.04

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 ensure control applicability is appropriately-determined for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and third parties by graphically representing applicable boundaries.

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-17.1_A01 one or more diagrams graphically depict control applicability boundaries for systems, applications, services and third parties to clarify "in-scope versus out-of-scope" determinations.

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.