Skip to main content

CHG-06.1: Report Verification Results

CHG 5 — Medium Identify

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?

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

  1. CHG-06.1_A01 personnel or roles designated to receive the results of cybersecurity / data privacy function verification is/are defined.
  2. 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)

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.