GOV-11: Operationalizing Security, Compliance & Resilience Capabilities
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)
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)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1633 ISM-1634 ISM-1635 ISM-1636 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 16(c) |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 2019 | 21.0 |
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 4.b |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.RM.S2 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.4.1 4.5.2.1 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP11 HHSP16 HHSP28 HML11 HML16 HML28 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP14 HSUP24 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 3.2.10.C.04 3.4.11.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 3.5.3 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 4.1.2 |
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
- 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.
- 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.
- GOV-11_A03 organization-defined systems security engineering principles are applied to the development or modification of the system and system components.
- 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)