CHG-06.1: Report Verification Results
Mechanisms exist to report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management.
Control Question: Does the organization report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management?
General (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SI-6(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SI-6(3) |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 6.5.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 6.5.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 6.5.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 6.5.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 6.5.2 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management.
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 protection 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.
- Up on completing the RFC, the CAB reports the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to senior management.
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 protection 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.
- Up on completing the RFC, the CAB reports the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to senior management.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management.
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 report the results of cybersecurity and data protection function verification to appropriate organizational management.
Assessment Objectives
- CHG-06.1_A01 personnel or roles designated to receive the results of cybersecurity / data privacy function verification is/are defined.
- CHG-06.1_A02 the results of security and/or function verification are reported to pertinent personnel or roles.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Change management procedures
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
Small
- Change management procedures
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
Medium
- Change management procedures
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
Large
- Change management procedures
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)
Enterprise
- Change management procedures
- Change Control Board (CCB)
- VisibleOps (https://itpi.org)