CRY-10.7: External System Cryptographic Key Control
Mechanisms exist to maintain control of cryptographic keys for encrypted material stored or transmitted through an external system.
Renumbered: Formerly CRY-09.7 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization maintain control of cryptographic keys for encrypted material stored or transmitted through an external system?
General (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-09(06) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-09(06) |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-9(CE-6) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | CRY-05.02B CRY-18.01B CRY-18.01B.2 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.21(a) 10.52 A10-B8(c) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 23.4.9.C.02 23.4.9.C.03 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
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.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Cryptographic Protections (CRY) 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 CRY 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 CRY domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security engineering team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CRY domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cryptographic protections operations (e.g., PKI management tool). ▪ 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 CRY 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 maintain control of cryptographic keys for encrypted material stored or transmitted through an external system.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
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.
Assessment Objectives
- CRY-10.7_A01 exclusive control of cryptographic keys is maintained for encrypted material stored or transmitted through an external system.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Cryptographic governance program
Small
- Cryptographic governance program
Medium
- Cryptographic governance program
Large
- Cryptographic governance program
Enterprise
- Cryptographic governance program