Skip to main content

END-11.5: Protection of Boot Firmware

END 5 — Medium Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to protect the integrity of boot firmware in systems.

Renumbered: Formerly END-06.6 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to protect the integrity of boot firmware in systems?

General (8)
Framework Mapping Values
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 EDR 3.14(1) HDR 3.14(1) NDR 3.14(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 SI-7(10)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 SI-07(10)
NIST 800-82 R3 SI-07(10)
NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 SI-07(10)
NIST 800-172 R3 03.14.10E
NIST 800-172A R3 DS-A.03.14.10E A.03.14.10E.ODP[01]
SPARTA 4.0 CM0014
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 SI-7(CE-10)
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia IoT Code of Practice 2024 8.0
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 A2-C9 A2-C9(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

Endpoint Security (END) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with END domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Endpoint security management-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

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

Endpoint Security (END) 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 END 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 END domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An endpoint technology management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain END domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of endpoint security operations (e.g., unified endpoint management solution). ▪ 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 END 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 protect the integrity of boot firmware in systems.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Endpoint Security (END) 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

Endpoint Security (END) 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

  1. END-11.5_A01 mechanisms to be implemented to protect the integrity of boot firmware in system components are defined.
  2. END-11.5_A02 system components requiring mechanisms to protect the integrity of boot firmware are defined.
  3. END-11.5_A03 mechanisms are implemented to protect the integrity of boot firmware in system components.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • UEFI Secure Boot

Small

  • UEFI Secure Boot

Medium

  • UEFI Secure Boot

Large

  • UEFI Secure Boot

Enterprise

  • UEFI Secure Boot

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.