Skip to main content

CHG-02.1: Prohibition Of Changes

CHG 10 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to prohibit unauthorized changes, unless organization-approved change requests are received.

Control Question: Does the organization prohibit unauthorized changes, unless organization-approved change requests are received?

General (28)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.8 CC8.1-POF2
CSA CCM 4 CCC-03 CCC-04
CSA IoT SCF 2 GVN-05
GovRAMP High CM-03(01)
ISO 42001 2023 6.3
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 TS-2.6
NIST 800-53 R4 CM-3(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) CM-3(1)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) CM-3(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) CM-3(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay CM-3(1)
NIST 800-161 R1 CM-3(1)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 CM-3(1)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 CM-3(1)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.04.02.b 03.04.03.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.04.03.b[02] A.03.04.05[05]
NIST 800-207 NIST Tenet 5
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) ID.RA-07
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 1.2.2 6.5 6.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 1.2.2 6.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 6.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 1.2.2 6.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 1.2.2 6.5.1
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 G.2
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) CHG-02.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational CHG-02.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure CHG-02.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats CHG-02.1
US (7)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 ASSET-4.E.MIL2 ARCHITECTURE-5.H.MIL3
US FedRAMP R4 CM-3(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) CM-3(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) CM-3(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) CM-3(1)
US NNPI (unclass) 4.3
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(4)(C) 7123(c)(5)(D) 7123(c)(5)(E)
EMEA (5)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.4.4(37) 3.6.3(75) 3.6.3(76)
EMEA Germany C5 2020 IDM-02
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 14.7
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 1-5-3-4
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 TPC-73
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 7.5.4
Americas (2)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2.5 2.5.1
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.04.02.B 03.04.03.A

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to prohibit unauthorized changes, unless organization-approved change requests are received.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Change Management (CHG) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability. o Notify stakeholders about proposed changes.

  • IT personnel use an informal process to:
  • Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
  • Requests for Change (RFC) are submitted to IT personnel.
  • prior to changes being made, RFCs are informally reviewed for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications.
  • Whenever possible, IT personnel test changes to business-critical systems/services/applications on a similarly configured IT environment as that of Production, prior to widespread production release of the change.
  • Copying, deleting, moving and renaming operations are version controlled.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Change Management (CHG) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Change management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for change management.
  • Changes are tracked through a centralized technology solution to submit, review, approve and assign Requests for Change (RFC).
  • A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability.
  • A CAB, or similar function, reviews RFCs for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications.
  • A CAB, or similar function, notifies stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes.
  • Logical Access Control (LAC) limits the ability of non-administrators from making unauthorized configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
  • Cybersecurity controls are tested after a change is implemented to ensure cybersecurity controls are operating properly.
  • Asset custodians are assigned responsibilities that cover change management duties, including privileged access to perform change management actions.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Change Management (CHG) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability. o Reviews RFC for cybersecurity and data privacy ramifications. o Notifies stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes.

  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, ensures compliance with requirements for asset management.
  • ITAM leverages a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or similar tool, as the authoritative source of IT assets.
  • Logical Access Control (LAC) is governed to limit the ability of non-administrators from making configuration changes to systems, applications and services.
  • A formal Change Management (CM) program ensures that no unauthorized changes are made, that all changes are documented, that services are not disrupted and that resources are used efficiently.
  • The CM function has formally defined roles and associated responsibilities.
  • Changes are tracked through a centralized technology solution to submit, review, approve and assign Requests for Change (RFC).
  • A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function:
  • IT personnel use dedicated development/test/staging environments to deploy and evaluate changes, wherever technically possible.
  • Asset custodians are assigned responsibilities that cover change management duties, including privileged access to perform change management actions.
  • File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) alerts are investigated for unauthorized changes.
  • FIM alerts are investigated for unauthorized changes and are configured to implement remediation actions up on the detection of unauthorized baseline configurations change(s).
  • FIM is deployed on systems that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated/regulated data to monitor the integrity of business-critical files for tampering.
  • Endpoint technologies detect and report changes with a centralized Change Management (CM) service to discover unauthorized changes.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Change Management (CHG) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • 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.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to prohibit unauthorized changes, unless organization-approved change requests are received.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CHG-02.1_A01 mechanisms used to automate configuration change control are defined.
  2. CHG-02.1_A02 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to prohibit changes to the system until designated approvals are received.
  3. CHG-02.1_A03 approval authorities to be notified of and request approval for proposed changes to the system are defined.
  4. CHG-02.1_A04 the time period after which to highlight changes that have not been approved or disapproved is defined.
  5. CHG-02.1_A05 personnel to be notified when approved changes are complete is/are defined.
  6. CHG-02.1_A06 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to document proposed changes to the system.
  7. CHG-02.1_A07 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to notify organization-defined approval authorities of proposed changes to the system and request change approval.
  8. CHG-02.1_A08 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to highlight proposed changes to the system that have not been approved or disapproved within an organization-defined time period.
  9. CHG-02.1_A09 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to document all changes to the system.
  10. CHG-02.1_A10 organization-defined automated mechanisms are used to notify organization-defined personnel when approved changes to the system are completed.
  11. CHG-02.1_A11 proposed configuration-controlled changes to the system are approved or disapproved with explicit consideration for security impacts.
  12. CHG-02.1_A12 logical access restrictions associated with changes to the system are approved.

Evidence Requirements

E-CHG-02 Charter - Change Control Board (CCB)

Documented evidence of the organization's Change Control Board (CCB) charter and mission to govern the organization's change control processes.

Change Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
  • Manual processes/workflows
  • Application whitelisting

Small

  • Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
  • Manual processes/workflows
  • Application whitelisting

Medium

  • Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
  • Application whitelisting
  • CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)

Large

  • Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
  • Application whitelisting
  • CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)

Enterprise

  • Role Based Access Control (RBAC)
  • Application whitelisting
  • CimTrak Integrity Suite (https://cimcor.com/cimtrak)

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.