Skip to main content

GOV-11: Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities

GOV 9 — Critical Govern

Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-15 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, GOV-11 was Purpose Validation. That control is now PRM-04.1.

Control Question: Does the organization compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control?

General (22)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC2.1-POF1 CC2.1-POF2 CC2.1-POF3 CC2.1-POF4 CC3.1-POF5 CC5.1 CC5.1-POF1 CC5.1-POF2 CC5.1-POF3 CC5.1-POF4 CC5.1-POF5 CC5.1-POF6
BSI Standard 200-1 4.1.3
IEC TR 60601-4-5 2021 4.1 4.6.1 5.1
IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management 3.5
ISO 22301 2019 8.1 8.1(a) 8.1(b) 8.1(c)
ISO 27017 2015 5.1 7.2.1
ISO 27018 2025 5.4
ISO 27701 2025 5.1
ISO 29100 2024 6.12
ISO 31000 2018 5.2
ISO 31010 2009 4.3.2
ISO 42001 2023 5.1 8.1
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 OR-1.0
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.D(2)(g)
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 GOVERN 4.0
NIST 800-37 R2 TASK P-17
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.15.01.a 03.16.01 03.17.01.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.15.01.a[03] A.03.16.01 A.03.17.01.a[01]
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 GV.PO-P2
SCF DPMP 2026 7.0 7.1
SWIFT CSF 2025 2.4
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 1.2.1 5.3.1 5.3.2
US (25)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal DHS CISA SSDAF 1.f
USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 II.4.a
USA Federal C2M2 2.1 ARCHITECTURE-1f
USA Federal DFARS 252.204-7012 252.204-7012(b)
USA Federal NNPI (unclass) 2010 9-2.b
USA Federal EO 14028 4e(i)(F)
USA Federal FAR 52.204-21 52.204-21(b)(1)
USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 11.30
USA Federal 45 CFR 155.260 155.260(a)(3)(viii) 155.260(a)(4) 155.260(a)(4)(i) 155.260(a)(4)(iii) 155.260(c)
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 3.3.1.l
USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F 101.625(d)(2) 101.625(d)(5) 101.650(c)
USA Federal FTC Act 1938 45(a)(1)
USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 § 164.306(a)(1) § 164.306(b)(1)
USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 § 164.306(a)(1) § 164.306(b)(1)
USA Federal NISPOM 2020 §117.18(a)(1) §117.18(e)
USA Federal NRC 10 CFR 73.54 2015 73.54(c)(1)
USA Federal FIPPS 1973 2.0
USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(i)
USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 609.930(a)
USA Federal TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 III.B III.C.1 III.C.3 III.D III.D.1
USA California CCPA 2025 7123(b)(3)
USA Illinois IPA 2009 35(c) 37(c)
USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 17.03(2)(b)
USA Nevada Privacy Law 2023 603A.210.2 603A.215.1
USA New York SHIELD Act 2019 899-bb.2(b)(ii)(B)
EMEA (14)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 3.4 3.6 5.1
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OIS-03.04B
EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 Article 13(2)(d) Article 15(1)
EMEA EU AI Act Article 17.2
EMEA EU DORA 2023 Article 7 Article 7(a) Article 7(b) Article 7(c) Article 7(d) Article 9.3
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 28.2(g)
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.3.4.22 3.4.1.30(a) 3.4.1.30(b) 3.4.1.30(c) 3.4.1.30(d) 3.4.1.30(e) 3.4.1.30(f) 3.4.1.30(g)
EMEA EU NIS2 2022 Article 21.1 Article 21.2(a) Article 21.2(b) Article 21.2(c) Article 21.2(d) Article 21.2(e) Article 21.2(f) Article 21.2(g) Article 21.2(h) Article 21.2(i) Article 21.2(j)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 6.2.1 6.7.1
EMEA UK CAF 4.0 B4.a
EMEA UK CAP 1850 2020 B4
EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 1-6-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 1-1-1 2-1-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 1-3-2 1-9-2 1-10-2 2-1-2 2-1-4 2-2-2 2-3-2 2-4-2 2-5-2 2-6-2 2-8-2 2-9-2 2-10-2 2-11-2 2-12-2 2-13-2 2-14-2 2-15-2 3-1-2 4-2-2 5-1-2
APAC (11)
Americas (4)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 5.3-BP2 5.11-BP4
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.15.01.A 03.16.01 03.17.01.A
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.2.1
Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance 3.2.1

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 compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.

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-11_A01 roles and responsibilities exist to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize security, compliance and resilience practices for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
  2. GOV-11_A02 Individual Contributor (IC) performance reviews cover how data and/or process owners operationalized security, compliance and resilience practices for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
  3. GOV-11_A03 organization-defined systems security engineering principles are applied to the development or modification of the system and system components.
  4. GOV-11_A04 <A.03.16.01.ODP[01]: systems security engineering principles> are applied to the development or modification of the system and system components.

Evidence Requirements

E-GOV-19 Operationalizing Cybersecurity & Data Protection Practices

Documented evidence of personnel management actions to compel data and/or process owners to operationalize cybersecurity and data protection practices for each Technology Asset, Application and/or Service (TAAS) under their control.

Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)

Small

  • ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)

Medium

  • ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)

Large

  • ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.com)

Enterprise

  • ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP) (https://complianceforge.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.