CHG-03: Configuration Change Control

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.

Change Management (CHG) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CHG domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Change management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Requests for Change (RFC) are submitted to IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Documented change control processes are either informal or do not exist.

Change Management (CHG) 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 CHG domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CHG 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 CHG domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Change management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Change management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Business stakeholders and process owners ensure changes to Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) within the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) are controlled through formal change control procedures. ▪ Configuration management practices prevent unauthorized changes by limiting and reviewing permissions to modify TAAS components within a production/operational environment ▪ A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, exists to govern Requests For Change (RFC) to TAAS to ensure security, compliance and resilience. ▪ The CAB includes a function to review RFCs for cybersecurity and data protection ramifications. ▪ The CAB notifies affected stakeholders to ensure awareness of the impact of proposed changes. ▪ Unauthorized configuration changes are responded to in accordance with an Incident Response Plan (IRP) to determine if the unauthorized configuration is malicious in nature.

Change Management (CHG) 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 CHG 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 CHG domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A centralized Change Management Office (CMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CHG domain capabilities. ▪ Technical procedures (e.g., ITIL change enablement) are utilized along with change management governance capabilities (e.g., Change Advisory Board (CAB)) to ensure successful, efficient and secure change management operations. ▪ 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 CHG 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 govern the technical configuration change control processes.

Change Management (CHG) 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.

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.