CFG-18.3: Embedded Sensor Data Collection Minimization
Mechanisms exist to utilize embedded sensors that are configured to minimize the collection of information about individuals.
Renumbered: Formerly END-13.3 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization utilize sensors that are configured to minimize the collection of information about individuals?
General (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| IEC TR 60601-4-5 2021 | 4.5 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PM-25 SA-08(33) SC-42(05) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | PM-25 SA-08(33) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PM-25 SA-08(33) SC-42(05) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PM-25 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PM-25 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PM-25 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | PM-25 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | PM-25 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.4 |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Switzerland FADP 2025 | 2.1.7.3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-6-3 |
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
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
Endpoint Security (END) 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 END domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with END 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 END domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Endpoint security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Endpoint security management 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
Configuration Management (CFG) 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 CFG 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 CFG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A configuration management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CFG domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of configuration management operations (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 CFG 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 utilize sensors that are configured to minimize the collection of information about individuals.
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
- CFG-18.3_A01 processes that implement the privacy principle of minimization are defined.
- CFG-18.3_A02 the privacy principle of minimization is implemented using organization-defined processes.
- CFG-18.3_A03 the embedded sensors that are configured to minimize the collection of unneeded information about individuals are defined.
- CFG-18.3_A04 embedded sensors configured to minimize the collection of information about individuals that is not needed are employed.
- CFG-18.3_A05 the frequency for reviewing / updating policies that address the use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research is defined.
- CFG-18.3_A06 policies that address the use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research are developed and documented.
- CFG-18.3_A07 procedures that address the use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research are developed and documented.
- CFG-18.3_A08 policies that address the use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research are implemented.
- CFG-18.3_A09 procedures that address the use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research are implemented.
- CFG-18.3_A10 the amount of Personal Data (PD) used for internal testing, training and research purposes is limited or minimized.
- CFG-18.3_A11 the required use of Personal Data (PD) for internal testing, training and research is authorized.
- CFG-18.3_A12 policies are reviewed / updated frequently.
- CFG-18.3_A13 procedures are reviewed / updated frequently.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Small
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Medium
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Large
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Enterprise
- Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management