GOV-14: State-Sponsored Espionage
Mechanisms exist to constrain the host government's ability to leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities.
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-13 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, GOV-14 was Business As Usual (BAU) Secure Practices. That control is now GOV-10.
Control Question: Does the organization constrain the host government's ability to leverage its Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities?
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC China Cybersecurity Law 2017 | Article 28 |
| APAC China Data Security Law 2021 | Article 27 |
| APAC China Privacy Law 2021 | Article 38 |
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 constrain the host government's ability to leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities.
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-14_A01 an executive steering committee, or advisory board, evaluates host nation business practices for possible instances where the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) could be leveraged for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities.
- GOV-14_A02 documented measures enable the executive steering committee, or advisory board, to identify and evaluate host nation business practices that could leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities.
- GOV-14_A03 actions are taken to prevent and/or block potential instances where host nation business practices could leverage the organization's Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) for economic or political espionage and/or cyberwarfare activities.
Evidence Requirements
- E-TPM-10 Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) Assessments
-
Documented evidence of Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) assessments and ownership change monitoring for third-parties.
Third-Party Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Legal review
Small
- Legal review
Medium
- Legal review
- Steering committee
- Board of Directors (BoD)
Large
- Legal review
- Steering committee
- Board of Directors (BoD)
Enterprise
- Legal review
- Steering committee
- Board of Directors (BoD)