BCD-10: Contingency Plan Testing & Exercises
Mechanisms exist to conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Renumbered: Formerly BCD-04 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, BCD-10 was Telecommunications Services Availability. That control is now BCD-17.
Control Question: Does the organization conduct tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and its readiness to execute the plan?
General (30)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.5-POF3 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.3 A1.3-POF1 A1.3-POF2 CC7.5 CC7.5-POF6 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS04.04 |
| CR CMM 2026 | CR7.2.2 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | BCR-06 BCR-10 DCS-15 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | OPA-03 OPA-06 |
| GovRAMP | CP-04 |
| GovRAMP Low | CP-04 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | CP-04 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CP-04 |
| GovRAMP High | CP-04 |
| ISO 22301 2019 | 8.5 8.5(a) 8.5(b) 8.5(c) 8.5(d) 8.5(e) 8.5(f) 8.5(g) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.29 5.30 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 17.1.3 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.29 5.30 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CP-4 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CP-04 |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.308(a)(7) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CP-04 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CP-4 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | CP-4 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | CP-4 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CP-4 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.PO-P8 |
US (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | CP-4 CP-4.a CP-4.b CP-4.c CP-4-IS.1 |
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.UNL.STEXE |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RESPONSE-4i RESPONSE-4n |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | CP-4 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.21 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | CP-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | CP-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | CP-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | CP-04 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | CP-4 |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.308(a)(7)(ii)(D) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.308(a)(7)(ii)(D) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-009-6 2.1 CIP-009-6 2.3 CIP-009-6 3.1 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.16(d)(1) 500.16(d)(2) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | CP-04 CP-04-SID |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | CP-04 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | CP-04 |
EMEA (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.E-91 IV.E-92 IV.E-93 IV.E-94 V-110 |
| EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 | 10.4 10.5 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PS-02.03B PS-06.01B.2 OPS-08.02AC BCM-01.02B.11 BCM-04.01B BCM-04.02B BCM-04.01AC |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.cont.1 op.cont.2 op.cont.3 |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 11.4 Article 11.6(a) Article 11.6(b) Article 11.6 (end) Article 24.1 Article 24.2 Article 24.3 Article 24.4 Article 24.5 Article 24.6 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 24.1(h) Article 24.1(i) Article 25.1 Article 25.2 Article 25.2(a) Article 25.2(d) Article 25.2(e) Article 27.2(l)(iii) Article 40.1 Article 40.2 Article 40.3 |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.7.4.87 3.7.4.89 3.7.4.89(a) 3.7.4.89(b) 3.7.4.89(c) 3.7.4.90 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 4.1.4 4.2.6 4.3.4 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 2503 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 2503 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 2503 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.7.4-87 3.7.4-89.a 3.7.4-89.b 3.7.4-89.c |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 48 112.a |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 3-1-1-3 3-1-1-4 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 3-1-1-6 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-70 |
| EMEA UAE NIAF 2023 | 3.4.1 |
APAC (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 27(c) 43 44 |
| APAC China Cybersecurity Law 2017 | Article 34(4) |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.RM.S3 PR.IP.S11 RC.IM.S2 RC.RP.S3 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 17.1.3.2 17.1.3.3 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 9.2(j) 10.13 A10-B14(f) |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 7.3.1 7.3.3(d) 7.3.3(e) 8.2.4 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 8.2.4 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.3(a) 8.3.3(b) 13.5.2 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 7.1-BP2 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 2.9.3 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 2.9.3 |
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
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with BCD domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Contingency management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited technologies exist to support near real-time network infrastructure failover (e.g., redundant ISPs and redundant power). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel develop limited Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) to recover business-critical Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) and services.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (BC/DR)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ BC/DR may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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 BCD 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 BCD domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BC/DR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain BCD domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of BC/DR operations (e.g., BC/DR planning software, Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS), Orchestration and Automation Tools). ▪ 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 BCD 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 tests and/or exercises to evaluate the contingency plan's effectiveness and the organization's readiness to execute the plan.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (BCD) 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
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
- BCD-10_A01 the frequency of testing the contingency plan for the system is defined.
- BCD-10_A02 tests for determining the effectiveness of the contingency plan are defined.
- BCD-10_A03 tests for determining readiness to execute the contingency plan are defined.
- BCD-10_A04 the contingency plan for the system is tested frequently.
- BCD-10_A05 tests are used to determine the effectiveness of the plan.
- BCD-10_A06 tests are used to determine the readiness to execute the plan.
Evidence Requirements
- E-BCD-06 COOP Testing
-
Documented evidence of a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)-related testing activity.
Business Continuity
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Tabletop exercises
Small
- Tabletop exercises
Medium
- Tabletop exercises
Large
- Tabletop exercises
- Simulated events
Enterprise
- Tabletop exercises
- Simulated events