GOV-05: Assigned Security, Compliance & Resilience Responsibilities
Mechanisms exist to assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-04 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, GOV-05 was Measures of Performance. That control is now GOV-12.
Control Question: Does the organization assign one or more qualified individuals with the mission and resources to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)?
General (42)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | M1.2-POF1 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC1.1 CC1.3 CC5.3-POF2 |
| BSI Standard 200-1 | 4.1.1 4.1.6 7.2 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO01.05 |
| COSO 2013 | 1.0 3.0 5.0 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | GRC-06 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | GVN-01 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.3 3.5.1.1 3.5.1.2 |
| ISO 22301 2019 | 5.3 |
| ISO 27001 2022 (source) | 5.1(f) 5.1(h) 5.3 5.3(a) 5.3(b) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.2 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 5.1 6.1 6.1.1 7.2.1 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.2 5.4 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 5.1 5.3 5.3(a) |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.2 5.4.3 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 5.3 5.3(a) 5.3(b) A.3.2 |
| NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) | 4.C(1) |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | GOVERN 1.3 GOVERN 2.1 GOVERN 2.3 GOVERN 5.0 |
| NIST 800-37 R2 | TASK P-1 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PL-9 PM-2 PM-6 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PL-09 PM-02 PM-06 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | PL-09 PM-06 |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.308(a)(2) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PL-09 PM-02 PM-06 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PM-02 PM-06 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PM-02 PM-06 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PM-02 PM-06 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | PL-9 PM-2 PM-6 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | PL-9 PM-2 PM-6 PM-29 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | PL-9 PM-2 PM-6 |
| NIST 800-218 | PO.2.3 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.RM GV.RM-05 GV.RR-01 GV.RR-02 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | GV.PO-P3 CM.PO-P2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 1.1.2 2.1.2 3.1.2 4.1.2 5.1.2 6.1.2 7.1.2 8.1.2 9.1.2 10.1.2 11.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4 12.4 A3.1.1 A3.1.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 12.1.3 12.1.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) | 12.1.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) | 12.1.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 12.1.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 1.1.2 2.1.2 3.1.2 4.1.2 5.1.2 6.1.2 7.1.2 8.1.2 9.1.2 10.1.2 11.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 1.1.2 2.1.2 3.1.2 5.1.2 6.1.2 7.1.2 8.1.2 9.1.2 10.1.2 11.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ P2PE (source) | 12.1.3 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 1.2.1 1.2.2 |
US (23)
EMEA (21)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.C-62 IV.D-72 |
| EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 | 4.5 4.6 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OIS-02.03B.5 BCM-01.03B BCM-03.01B.3 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | org.4 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 13(3) |
| EMEA EU AI Act | Article 17.1(m) |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 5.2 Article 5.2(a) Article 5.2(b) Article 5.2(c) Article 5.2(d) Article 5.2(e) Article 5.2(f) Article 5.2(g) Article 5.2(h) Article 5.2(i)(i) Article 5.2(i)(ii) Article 5.2(i)(iii) Article 5.3 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 2.2(d) Article 2.2(i) Article 19.1(a) Article 28.2 Article 28.2(a) Article 28.2(b) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.11 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 1.1.1(g) 1.2.1 1.2.4 |
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | A1.b A1.c |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 1102 1103 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 1102 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 1102 1103 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 1102 1103 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | 4.2, Stage 1.1 |
| EMEA Israel PPL 2025 | s.17B |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.2.1-2 3.3.1-11 3.3.1-12 3.4.1-29 3.4.1-30.a |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 35 36.c 36.d 140.a 140.b |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-2-2 1-4-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.1.4 3.1.4.4 3.1.4.4.a 3.1.4.4.a.1 3.1.4.4.a.2 3.1.4.4.a.3 3.1.4.4.a.4 3.1.4.4.b 3.1.4.4.c 3.1.4.4.d 3.1.4.4.e 3.1.4.4.e.1 3.1.4.4.e.2 3.1.4.4.e.3 3.1.4.4.e.4 3.1.4.4.e.5 3.1.4.4.f 3.1.4.4.g 3.1.4.4.g.1 3.1.4.4.g.2 3.1.4.4.g.3 3.1.4.4.h 3.1.4.4.i 3.1.4.4.i.1 3.1.4.4.i.2 3.1.4.4.i.3 3.1.4.4.i.4 |
APAC (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia CCM 2026 | GOV-02 GOV-04 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0714 ISM-0717 ISM-0720 ISM-0724 ISM-0725 ISM-0726 ISM-0731 ISM-0732 ISM-0733 ISM-0734 ISM-0735 ISM-1997 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 23 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 2019 | 14.0 |
| APAC China Data Security Law 2021 | Article 27 |
| APAC India DPDPA 2023 | 19(3) |
| APAC India RBI PA 2025 | III.8.d Annex 1.1.6 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.RR.S1 GV.RR.S2 GV.RR.S3 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.1.2 5.1.1.6 5.1.2.1 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 8.6 9.2(b) 9.4 9.5 11.8 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP21 HHSP27 HML21 HML27 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP19 HSUP23 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 3.1.8.C.01 3.1.8.C.02 3.1.8.C.03 3.1.9.C.01 3.2.8.C.01 3.2.8.C.02 3.2.8.C.03 3.2.8.C.04 3.2.8.C.05 3.2.9.C.01 3.2.10.C.01 3.2.10.C.02 3.2.10.C.03 3.2.10.C.04 3.2.11.C.01 3.2.11.C.02 3.2.11.C.03 3.2.12.C.01 3.2.12.C.02 3.2.12.C.03 3.2.13.C.01 3.2.13.C.02 3.2.14.C.01 3.2.15.C.01 3.2.16.C.01 3.2.17.C.01 3.2.18.C.01 3.2.19.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 2.1.2(c) 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.2(b)iv |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 3.1.3 3.1.8 |
Americas (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | E.1.2-8 |
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 5.2 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 1.1.1 1.1.2 |
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
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)). ▪ The individual assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain a cybersecurity and data protection program develops plans to implement the organization's security, compliance and resiliency-related objectives.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) 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 GOV 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 GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV 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). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ A qualified individual is assigned the role and responsibilities to centrally-manage, coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an enterprise-wide Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (e.g., cybersecurity director or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)).
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
- GOV-05_A01 a senior organizational cybersecurity position is appointed.
- GOV-05_A02 the senior organizational cybersecurity position is provided with the mission and resources to coordinate, develop, implement and maintain an organization-wide cybersecurity program.
Evidence Requirements
- E-HRS-03 Assigned Roles - Cybersecurity Staff
-
List of employed or contract personnel assigned to cybersecurity roles.
Human Resources - E-HRS-05 Role Assignment - CISO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) position.
Human Resources - E-HRS-06 Role Assignment - COO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to the Chief Operations Officer (COO) position.
Human Resources - E-HRS-07 Role Assignment - CIO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) position.
Human Resources - E-HRS-08 Role Assignment - CPO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to the Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) position.
Human Resources - E-HRS-09 Role Assignment - CRO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to the Chief Risk Officer (CRO) position.
Human Resources - E-HRS-10 Role Assignment - DPO
-
Documented evidence of a formal role assignment to Data Protection Officer (DPO) positions.
Human Resources - E-HRS-13 Defined Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Responsibilities
-
Documented evidence of a role-based cybersecurity & data privacy responsibilities to ensure personnel are both educated on the role and are responsible for the associated control execution.
Human Resources
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP))
- Designated internal security point of contact
- vCISO services (e.g., Truvantis, private vCISO firms)
Small
- Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO (vCISO), Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP))
- Part-time or shared security manager
- vCISO services with defined scope and deliverables
Medium
- Dedicated Information Security Manager (ISM) or fractional CISO
- Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or equivalent role
- Defined Information Security Management System (ISMS) ownership
Large
- Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with defined authority and budget
- Security leadership team (CISO, DPO, IAM lead, etc.)
- Security organizational structure with clear reporting lines
Enterprise
- Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with C-suite authority and board access
- Security leadership organization (CISO, Deputy CISO, DPO, domain leads)
- Security Center of Excellence (CoE)
- Defined succession planning for key security roles