Skip to main content

GOV-07: Materiality Determination

GOV 7 — High Govern

Mechanisms exist to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-16 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, GOV-07 was Contacts With Groups & Associations. That control is now GOV-16.

Control Question: Does the organization define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material?

General (4)
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.105(b) 17 CFR 229.106(a) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(2) 17 CFR 229.106(c)(2) Form 8-K Item 1.05(a)
USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 5.260.4
USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.4(b) 500.4(b)(3) 500.4(b)(5) 500.9(b)(1) 500.9(b)(2)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance 2.9.3

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

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

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). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.

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

  1. GOV-07_A01 organization-specific criteria to define a materiality threshold capable of designating an incident as material are documented.

Evidence Requirements

E-GOV-15 Materiality Threshold Definition

Documented evidence of criteria to define the organization's materiality threshold.

Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
E-RSK-10 Material Risk Definition

Documented evidence of criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk.

Risk Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Simple materiality threshold definition (document what constitutes a material incident)

Small

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Documented materiality criteria aligned to business impact and applicable regulations

Medium

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Documented materiality thresholds (financial, reputational, operational, regulatory)
  • SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules considered (if applicable)

Large

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Formal materiality determination process aligned to SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules (if public)
  • Cross-functional materiality review team (Legal, Finance, CISO, Operations)

Enterprise

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Enterprise materiality determination framework (SEC Item 1.05, PCAOB, SOX alignment)
  • Board-approved materiality thresholds with regular review cycle
  • Automated materiality scoring integrated with incident response workflows

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.