Skip to main content

GOV-11.1: Select Controls

GOV 8 — High Govern

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

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-15.1 in SCF 2025.4.

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

General (12)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC5.1
IEC TR 60601-4-5 2021 4.1 4.6.1
ISO 22301 2019 8.1
ISO 29100 2024 6.12
ISO 31000 2018 5.2
ISO 42001 2023 8.1
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 OR-1.0
NIST 800-37 R2 TASK P-5 TASK S-1
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.15.01.a 03.17.01.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.15.01.a[03] A.03.17.01.a[01]
SCF DPMP 2026 7.0 7.1
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 1.2.1 1.2.4 5.3.1 5.3.2
US (19)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal C2M2 2.1 ARCHITECTURE-1f ARCHITECTURE-1g
USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 CTRL:SG2.SP1 EC:SG2 EC:SG2.SP2 KIM:SG2 KIM:SG2.SP2 TM:SG2 TM:SG2.SP2
USA Federal DFARS 252.204-7012 252.204-7012(b) 252.204-7012(b)(2)(i) 252.204-7012(b)(2)(ii)(A) 252.204-7012(b)(3)
USA Federal NNPI (unclass) 2010 9-2.b
USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 II.C.4
USA Federal 45 CFR 155.260 155.260(a)(4)
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 3.3.1.l
USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F 101.625(d)(2)
USA Federal FTC Act 1938 45(a)(1)
USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 § 164.306(a)(1)
USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 § 164.306(a)(1)
USA Federal NISPOM 2020 §117.18(a)(1) §117.18(a)(2) §117.18(e)(1) §117.18(e)(2) §117.18(e)(3)
USA Federal NSF RIG 2025 5.3.6 5.3.7 5.3.7.4
USA Federal FIPPS 1973 2.0
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
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 (10)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 3.4 3.6 5.1
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OIS-01.02B.3
EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 Article 28(2)
EMEA EU DORA 2023 Article 7(a) Article 7(b) Article 7(c) Article 7(d)
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 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
APAC (4)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-1634
APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 2019 21.0 21(a) 21(b) 21(c) 21(d)
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.4.4.1
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 3.2.10.C.04
Americas (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 compel data and/or process owners to select required security, compliance and resilience controls 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-11.1_A01 roles and responsibilities exist to compel data and/or process owners to select required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.
  2. GOV-11.1_A02 Individual Contributor (IC) performance reviews cover how data and/or process owners select required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Small

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Medium

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Large

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Enterprise

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

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.