DCH-37: Cybersecurity & Data Protection Attributes
Mechanisms exist to bind cybersecurity and data protection attributes to information as it is stored, transmitted and processed.
Renumbered: Formerly DCH-05 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization bind cybersecurity and data protection attributes to information as it is stored, transmitted and processed?
General (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | DAT-01 |
| MITRE ATT&CK 16 | T1003 T1003.003 T1005 T1020.001 T1025 T1040 T1041 T1048 T1048.002 T1048.003 T1052 T1052.001 T1070 T1070.001 T1070.002 T1070.008 T1114 T1114.001 T1114.002 T1114.003 T1119 T1213 T1213.001 T1213.002 T1213.004 T1213.005 T1222 T1222.001 T1222.002 T1505 T1505.002 T1530 T1537 T1547.007 T1548 T1548.003 T1548.006 T1550.001 T1552 T1552.004 T1552.005 T1556.009 T1557 T1557.002 T1558 T1558.002 T1558.003 T1558.004 T1564.004 T1565 T1565.001 T1565.002 T1567 T1602 T1602.001 T1602.002 T1647 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | AC-16 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | AC-16 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | AC-16 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | CT.DM-P7 |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 4.3.3 4.3.5 5.1.2 |
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
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 bind cybersecurity and data protection attributes to information as it is stored, transmitted and processed.
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-37_A01 types of security / privacy attributes associated with cybersecurity attribute values for information in storage, in process, and/or in transmission are defined.
- DCH-37_A02 the means to associate organization-defined types of security / privacy attributes with organization-defined security attribute values for information in storage, in process, and/or in transmission are provided.
- DCH-37_A03 the frequency at which to review cybersecurity / data privacy attributes for applicability is defined.
- DCH-37_A04 attributes are reviewed according to an organization-defined frequency.
- DCH-37_A05 attribute associations are made.
- DCH-37_A06 changes to attributes are audited.
- DCH-37_A07 attribute associations are retained with the information.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Data classification program
- Metadata tagging
Small
- Data classification program
- Metadata tagging
Medium
- Data classification program
- Metadata tagging
- Data governance program
Large
- Data classification program
- Metadata tagging
- Data governance program
Enterprise
- Data classification program
- Metadata tagging
- Data governance program