DCH-09: Sensitive / Regulated Data Access Mapping
Mechanisms exist to leverage data-specific Access Control Lists (ACL) or Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs) to generate a logical map of the parties with whom sensitive and/or regulated data is shared.
Renumbered: Formerly DCH-14.3 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, DCH-09 was System Media Sanitization. That control is now DCH-18.
Control Question: Does the organization leverage data-specific Access Control Lists (ACL) or Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs) to generate a logical map of the parties with whom sensitive and/or regulated data is shared?
General (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 3.3 3.8 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 3.3 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 3.3 3.8 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 3.3 3.8 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.01.03 03.01.20.c.02 03.12.05.a |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.01.03[02] A.03.01.20.c.02 A.03.12.05.a[01] |
US (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.DA.DAUTE |
| USA Federal NISPOM 2020 | §117.18(c)(2)(vii)(I) |
| USA Federal TSA SDP 2021-02F | III.B.1.a |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | B3.a |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A5-B4(c) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.2.5.C.01 16.2.6.C.01 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.01.03 03.01.20.C.02 03.12.05.A |
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Limited media handling guidance exists for users.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ 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 DCH 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 leverage data-specific Access Control Lists (ACL) or Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs) to generate a logical map of the parties with whom sensitive/regulated data is shared.
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
- DCH-09_A01 a data-specific Access Control List (ACL) or Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) is documented to generate a logical map of the parties with whom sensitive / regulated data is shared.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Access Control Lists (ACL)
- Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
Small
- Access Control Lists (ACL)
- Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
Medium
- Access Control Lists (ACL)
- Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
Large
- Access Control Lists (ACL)
- Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)
Enterprise
- Access Control Lists (ACL)
- Interconnection Security Agreements (ISAs)