Skip to main content

BCD-13: Alternate Processing Site

BCD 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to establish an alternate processing site that provides processing capability and security measures equivalent to that of the primary site.

Renumbered: Formerly BCD-09 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, BCD-13 was Backup & Restoration Hardware Protection. That control is now BCD-31.

Control Question: Does the organization establish an alternate processing site that provides security measures equivalent to that of the primary site?

General (23)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2 A1.2-POF10
CR CMM 2026 CR10.2.5
GovRAMP CP-07
GovRAMP Core CP-07
GovRAMP Low+ CP-07
GovRAMP Moderate CP-07
GovRAMP High CP-07
ISO 27002 2022 8.14
ISO 27017 2015 17.2.1
ISO 27018 2025 8.14
MITRE ATT&CK 16 T1070 T1070.001 T1070.002 T1070.008 T1119 T1485 T1486 T1490 T1491 T1491.001 T1491.002 T1561 T1561.001 T1561.002 T1565 T1565.001
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 OP-2.1
NIST 800-53 R4 CP-7
NIST 800-53 R5.2 CP-07 PE-23
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) CP-07
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) CP-07
NIST 800-82 R3 CP-07 PE-23
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay CP-07
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay CP-07
NIST 800-161 R1 CP-7 PE-23
NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down PE-23
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 CP-7 PE-23
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 CP-7 PE-23
US (7)
EMEA (5)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 10.5
EMEA Germany C5 2026 PS-02.01B PS-02.02B PS-02.01AS PS-02.02AS OPS-09.05B
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 op.cont.4
EMEA EU DORA 2023 Article 12.5 Article 12.5(a) Article 12.5(b) Article 12.5(c)
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 24.2(c)(ii) Article 24.2(c)(iii) Article 26.2(c)
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 17.2 17.2.1 17.2.1.1 17.2.1.2 17.2.1.3
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 8.2.4

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

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 establish an alternate processing site that provides security measures equivalent to that of the primary site.

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. BCD-13_A01 system operations for essential mission and business functions are defined.
  2. BCD-13_A02 time period consistent with recovery time and recovery point objectives is defined.
  3. BCD-13_A03 an alternate processing site, including necessary agreements to permit the transfer and resumption of system operations for essential mission and business functions, is established within an organization-defined time period when the primary processing capabilities are unavailable.
  4. BCD-13_A04 the equipment and supplies required to transfer operations are made available at the alternate processing site or if contracts are in place to support delivery to the site within an organization-specified time period for transfer.
  5. BCD-13_A05 the equipment and supplies required to resume operations are made available at the alternate processing site or if contracts are in place to support delivery to the site within an organization-defined time period for resumption.
  6. BCD-13_A06 controls provided at the alternate processing site are equivalent to those at the primary site.
  7. BCD-13_A07 the location or site of the facility where the system resides is planned considering physical and environmental hazards.
  8. BCD-13_A08 the alternate processing site provides processing capability equivalent to that of the primary site.

Evidence Requirements

E-BCD-18 Alternate Processing / Storage Site Agreements

Documented evidence of alternate processing site, alternate storage site and alternate telecommunications service agreements, including separation from primary sites.

Business Continuity

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Cloud-based alternate processing (AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud)
  • Documented recovery procedures to cloud fallback

Small

  • Cloud-based alternate processing (AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud)
  • Basic DR runbooks and cloud failover procedures

Medium

  • Cloud-based warm/hot site (AWS, Azure, GCP)
  • Managed DR service (e.g., AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, Azure Site Recovery)
  • Documented and tested failover procedures

Large

  • AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery or Azure Site Recovery
  • Cloud-based or colocation alternate processing site
  • Regular failover testing with documented RTO/RPO validation

Enterprise

  • Enterprise DR platform with automated failover (e.g., Zerto, Veeam Replication, AWS DRS)
  • Geographically separate alternate processing site (cloud or colocation)
  • Regularly tested failover with RTO/RPO compliance verification
  • NIST SP 800-34 contingency planning alignment

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.