CAP-04: Resource Priority
Mechanisms exist to control resource utilization of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are susceptible to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to limit and prioritize the use of resources.
Renumbered: Formerly CAP-02 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, CAP-04 was Performance Monitoring. That control is now CAP-05.
Control Question: Does the organization control resource utilization of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are susceptible to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to limit and prioritize the use of resources?
General (24)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.1 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | OPA-08 OPA-09 |
| GovRAMP | SC-05 SC-06 |
| GovRAMP Low | SC-05 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | SC-05 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SC-05 SC-06 |
| GovRAMP High | SC-05 SC-06 |
| MITRE ATT&CK 16 | T1564.009 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-5 SC-5(1) SC-5(2) SC-6 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SC-05 SC-05(01) SC-05(02) SC-06 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SC-05 SC-05(01) SC-05(02) SC-06 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SC-05 |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | SC-05(02) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | SC-5 SC-5(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | SC-5(2) |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.13.12E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.13.12E.b |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | PR.IR-04 |
| Shared Assessments SIG 2025 | N.2 |
US (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SC-5 SC-6 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SC-5 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | SC-05 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SC-05 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SC-05 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | SC-05 |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | SC-05 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | SC-05 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | SC-05 |
EMEA (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OPS-01.03B OPS-03.01B |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | Appendix A, 7.1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-92 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1579 ISM-1580 ISM-1581 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 6.4.8 |
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
Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CAP domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Capability management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders to identify growth requirements and add capacity accordingly.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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 CAP domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CAP 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 CAP domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Capability management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Capability management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to create and maintain infrastructure performance metrics to understand current resource needs.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 control resource utilization of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that are susceptible to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to limit and prioritize the use of resources.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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
Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) 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
- CAP-04_A01 types of denial-of-service events to be protected against or limited are defined.
- CAP-04_A02 controls by type of denial-of-service event are employed to achieve the denial-of-service protection objective.
- CAP-04_A03 resource prioritization is designed to limit negative effects of denial-of-service events.
- CAP-04_A04 controls to achieve the denial-of-service objective by type of denial-of-service event are defined.
- CAP-04_A05 the effects of types of denial-of-service events are organizationally-defined.
Evidence Requirements
- E-CAP-02 Resource Prioritization
-
Documented evidence of resource prioritization to maintain business performance requirements for critical Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) (including facilities and third-parties).
Capacity Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Monitor system resource usage periodically
Small
- Capacity monitoring for critical systems
- Resource usage baseline
Medium
- Capacity planning process
- Performance monitoring tools
Large
- Enterprise capacity management program
- Performance monitoring platform (e.g., Dynatrace, New Relic)
Enterprise
- Enterprise capacity management platform
- APM tools (e.g., Dynatrace, Datadog)
- Automated scaling