DCH-40: Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Automated mechanisms exist to implement Data Loss Prevention (DLP) to protect sensitive information as it is stored, transmitted and processed.
Renumbered: Formerly NET-17 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to implement Data Loss Prevention (DLP) to protect sensitive information as it is stored, transmitted and processed?
General (18)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.3-POF1 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.7-POF1 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 3.13 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 3.13 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | UEM-11 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | DAT-02 |
| GovRAMP | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| GovRAMP High | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 8.12 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 8.12 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-1.9 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SC-7(10) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.01.17E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.01.17E.a |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | A3.2.6 |
US (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.DA.DLPRE 3.PEP.EM.DLPRE 3.PEP.FI.DLPRE 3.PEP.SE.DLPRE 3.PEP.UN.DLPRE 3.PEP.WE.DLPRE |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ARCHITECTURE-5f |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture 2.0 | 5.4 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 4.3.4 4.4.1 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.7.4 4.7.6 4.7.7 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.13.a |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SI-04(18) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SC-07(10) SI-04(18) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SI-4(CE-18) |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(8)(B) |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | AM-12.01AC.2 PSS-01.02B.10 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 11.2(i) Article 14.1(b) Article 23.5(b) |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 2320 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 2320 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 2320 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.4-36.c |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-6-1-2 |
APAC (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | PR.DS.S4 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A5-B2 A5-B2(a) A5-B2(b) A5-B2(c) A5-B4 A10-B12(a) |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP63 HML69 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP55 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 15.2.39.C.01 15.2.40.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 5.13.3(b) |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 11.1.1 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | E.1.2-DS-3 |
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 6.9 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.2.5 |
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
Network Security (NET) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with NET domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Network security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Network Security (NET) 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 NET domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with NET 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 NET domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Network security-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Network security management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT personnel define secure networking practices to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD. ▪ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce the principles of least privileges and least functionality for boundary protection technologies. ▪ Data Loss Prevention (DLP), or similar technologies, prevent unauthorized devices from connecting to endpoint devices to control the distribution of sensitive/regulated data. ▪ DLP prevents unauthorized devices from connecting to endpoint devices to control the distribution of sensitive/regulated data.
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 automatically implement Data Loss Prevention (DLP) to protect sensitive information as it is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Network Security (NET) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Network Security (NET) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Assessment Objectives
- DCH-40_A01 points where communications traffic is to be analyzed are defined.
- DCH-40_A02 outbound communications traffic is analyzed at interfaces external to the system to detect covert exfiltration of information.
- DCH-40_A03 outbound communications traffic is analyzed at interfaces internal to the system to detect covert exfiltration of information.
Evidence Requirements
- E-DCH-16 Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Configuration
-
Documented evidence of Data Loss Prevention (DLP) and exfiltration prevention configurations.
Data Protection
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Small
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Medium
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Large
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Enterprise
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP)