GOV-02.1: Exception Management
Mechanisms exist to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Control Question: Does the organization prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded?
General (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-07 |
| TISAX ISA 6 | 1.5.1 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | GOV-02.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | GOV-02.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | GOV-02.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | GOV-02.1 |
US (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap | 2.3.7 2.7.3 |
| US HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 (source) | 164.306(d)(3)(ii)(B)(1) |
| US HIPAA Security Rule / NIST SP 800-66 R2 (source) | 164.306(d)(3)(ii)(B)(1) |
| US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.12(b) 500.15(b) 500.9(b)(3) |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF | GV.PO.S3 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Cybersecurity & Privacy Governance (GOV) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- No formal cybersecurity and/ or data privacy principles are identified for the organization.
- No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
- Governance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
- Formal roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity and/ or data privacy may exist.
- Cybersecurity and data privacy governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel.
- Basic cybersecurity policies and standards are documented [not based on any industry framework]
- Basic procedures are established for important tasks, but are ad hoc and not formally documented.
- Documentation is made available to internal personnel.
- Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to observed trends.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Cybersecurity & Privacy Governance (GOV) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Cybersecurity and data privacy governance activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy governance activities.
- The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives of the security function, based on business requirements.
- A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data privacy program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)).
- No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing cybersecurity personnel.
- Compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented.
- Cybersecurity policies and standards exist that are aligned with a leading cybersecurity framework (e.g., SCF, NIST 800-53, ISO 27002 or NIST Cybersecurity Framework).
- Controls are assigned to sensitive/regulated assets to comply with specific compliance requirements.
- Procedures are established for sensitive/regulated obligations, but are not standardized across the organization.
- Documentation is made available to internal personnel.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Privacy Governance (GOV) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented. Recurring testing is utilized to assess adherence to internal standards and/or external compliance requirements.
- A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function, provides scoping guidance to determine control applicability.
- Internal policies and standards address all statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations for cybersecurity and data privacy.
- Controls are standardized across the organization to ensure uniformity and consistent execution.
- Corporate governance (executive oversight) exists for the cybersecurity and data privacy, which includes regular briefings to ensure executives have sufficient situational awareness to properly govern the organization.
- Procedures are established for sensitive/regulated compliance obligations that are standardized across the organization.
- Defined roles & responsibilities require data/process owners to define, implement and maintain cybersecurity and data protection controls for each system, application and/ or service of which they have accountability.
- The organization designates one or more qualified individuals to govern the cybersecurity and data privacy programs (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer or Chief Privacy Officer).
- Risk management processes are defined, to include materiality considerations.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to prohibit exceptions to standards, except when the exception has been formally assessed for risk impact, approved and recorded.
Assessment Objectives
- GOV-02.1_A01 exception requests to standards are formally submitted for review, along with a business justification for the deviation and proposed compensating controls.
- GOV-02.1_A02 the exception request undergoes a risk assessment to evaluate the business justification and proposed compensating controls.
- GOV-02.1_A03 a documented determination is made to approve or deny the exception request.
- GOV-02.1_A04 the requestor of the exception is provided a response on the determination including required actions, if applicable.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-18 Exception Management
-
Documented evidence of authorized exceptions to standards (e.g., configurations, practices, etc.)
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Manual exception management process
- SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Small
- Manual exception management process
- Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) solution
- SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Medium
- Manual exception management process
- Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) solution
- SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Large
- Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) solution
- SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)
Enterprise
- Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) solution
- SCFConnect (https://scfconnect.com)