Skip to main content

CRY-01.1: Alternate Physical Protection

CRY 5 — Medium Protect

Cryptographic mechanisms exist to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternative to physical safeguards.

Control Question: Are cryptographic mechanisms utilized to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternative to physical safeguards?

General (18)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.7-POF3
GovRAMP Moderate SC-08(01)
GovRAMP High SC-08(01)
NIST 800-53 R4 SC-8(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) SC-8(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) SC-8(1)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) SC-8(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) SC-8(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) SC-8(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay SC-8(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay SC-8(1)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.8.6 3.13.8
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.13.8[b] 3.13.8[c]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.13.08
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.DS-01
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational CRY-01.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure CRY-01.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats CRY-01.1
US (18)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 ARCHITECTURE-5.G.MIL3
US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) MP.L2-3.8.6 SC.L2-3.13.8
US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) SC.L2-3.13.8
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R4 SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) SC-8(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) SC-8(1)
US HIPAA HICP Medium Practice 2.M.A 4.M.C 5.M.C
US HIPAA HICP Large Practice 2.M.A 4.M.C 5.M.C
US - MA 201 CMR 17.00 17.04(3)
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.15(b)
US - OR 646A 622(2)(d)(C)(iii)
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 SC-8(1)
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 15.7
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.13.08

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to Cryptographic prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternative to physical safeguards.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Data classification and handling criteria govern requirements to encrypt sensitive/regulated data during transmission and in storage.
  • Network communications containing sensitive/regulated data are protected using a cryptographic mechanism to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information while in transit (e.g., SSH, TLS, VPN, etc.).
  • Wireless access is protected via secure authentication and encryption.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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:

  • Cryptographic 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 cryptographic management.
  • Data classification and handling criteria govern requirements to encrypt sensitive/regulated data during transmission and in storage.
  • Decentralized technologies implement cryptographic mechanisms on endpoints to control how sensitive/regulated data is encrypted during transmission and in storage.
  • Systems, applications and services that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 Implements Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) key management controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of keys. o Implements and maintains an internal PKI infrastructure or obtains PKI services from a reputable PKI service provider.

  • The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or similar function with technical competence to address cybersecurity concerns, analyzes the organization's business strategy to determine prioritized and authoritative guidance for cryptographic protections.
  • The CISO, or similar function, develops a security-focused Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that documents management, operational and technical measures for cryptographic protections.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function, provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data using cryptographic protections.
  • A steering committee is formally established to provide executive oversight of the cybersecurity and data privacy program, including cryptographic protections.
  • Data classification and handling criteria govern requirements to encrypt sensitive/regulated data during transmission and in storage.
  • Centrally-managed technologies implement cryptographic mechanisms on endpoints to control how sensitive/regulated data is encrypted during transmission and in storage.
  • Certificate management is centrally-managed and the use of certificates is monitored.
  • Cryptographic keys are proactively managed to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA) of cryptographic capabilities.
  • Systems, applications and services that store, process or transmit sensitive/regulated data use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternate to physical safeguards.
  • An IT infrastructure team, or similar function:
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel perform an annual review of deployed cryptographic cipher suites and protocols to identify and replace weak cryptographic cipher suites and protocols.
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 Cryptographic prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternative to physical safeguards.

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 Cryptographic prevent unauthorized disclosure of information as an alternative to physical safeguards.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CRY-01.1_A01 either cryptographic mechanisms or alternative physical safeguards are implemented to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive / regulated data during transmission.
  2. CRY-01.1_A02 alternative physical safeguards intended to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive / regulated are identified.

Evidence Requirements

E-GOV-18 Exception Management

Documented evidence of authorized exceptions to standards (e.g., configurations, practices, etc.)

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Small

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Medium

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Large

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

Enterprise

  • Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)

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.