Skip to main content

GOV-02.1: Exception Management

GOV 8 — High Govern

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

  1. 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.
  2. GOV-02.1_A02 the exception request undergoes a risk assessment to evaluate the business justification and proposed compensating controls.
  3. GOV-02.1_A03 a documented determination is made to approve or deny the exception request.
  4. 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)

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.