GOV-11.5: Monitor Controls
Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to monitor Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, as well as to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-15.5 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization compel data and/or process owners to monitor Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, as well as to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended?
General (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| ISO 27001 2022 (source) | 9.2.2 |
| ISO 29100 2024 | 6.12 |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.2 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 8.1 |
| NIST 800-37 R2 | TASK M-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 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal DFARS 252.204-7012 | 252.204-7012(b) |
| USA Federal NNPI (unclass) 2010 | 9-2.b |
| 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(e)(7) §117.18(e)(7)(i) §117.18(e)(7)(ii) §117.18(e)(7)(iii) §117.18(e)(7)(iv) |
| USA Federal FIPPS 1973 | 2.0 |
| USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 | 609.930(a) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(b) |
| USA New York SHIELD Act 2019 | 899-bb.2(b)(ii)(B) |
EMEA (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 7(a) Article 7(b) Article 7(c) Article 7(d) |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-6-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 1-1-1 |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1526 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A9-1(d) A9-2(d) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 23.2.18.C.01 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.15.01.A 03.17.01.A |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1.1.1 2.1.1 |
| 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 monitor Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, as well as to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
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-11.5_A01 roles and responsibilities exist to compel data and/or process owners to monitor the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, and to confirm that security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
- GOV-11.5_A02 Individual Contributor (IC) performance reviews cover how data and/or process owners monitor the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control on an ongoing basis for applicable threats and risks, and confirm that security, compliance and resilience controls are operating as intended.
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)