HRS-10: Personnel Sanctions
Mechanisms exist to sanction personnel failing to comply with established security policies, standards and procedures.
Renumbered: Formerly HRS-07 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, HRS-10 was Third-Party Personnel Security. That control is now HRS-13.
Control Question: Does the organization sanction personnel failing to comply with established security policies, standards and procedures?
General (26)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC1.1-POF4 CC1.5 CC1.5-POF5 CC1.5-POF6 CC7.4-POF14 |
| COSO 2013 | 5.0 |
| GovRAMP | PS-08 |
| GovRAMP Low | PS-08 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | PS-08 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | PS-08 |
| GovRAMP High | PS-08 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 6.4 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 6.4 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 7.3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PS-8 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | PS-08 |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.308(a)(1) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PS-08 |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | NFO - PS-8 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.01.01.f.04 03.01.01.f.05 |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.9.2[a] 3.9.2[b] 3.9.2[c] |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.01.01.f.04 A.03.01.01.f.05 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.PO GV.PO-01 GV.PO-02 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.8 |
US (18)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PS-8 PS-8.a PS-8.b |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | WORKFORCE-1g |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | HRM:SG3.SP4 |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 | PS.L3-3.9.2E |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | PS-8 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.7.e |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | PS-08 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | PS-08 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PS-08 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | PS-08 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | 2.C.4.2 PS-8 |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(C) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(C) § 164.530(e)(1) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(d) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | PS-08 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | PS-08 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | PS-08 |
| USA Vermont Act 171 2018 | 2447(b)(4) |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | HR-04.01B HR-04.02B HR-04.02B.2 HR-04.03B HR-04.04B IAM-06.07B |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 2.2(e) |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 10.4.1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.3.1.3.c |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 7.2.3 7.2.3.1 7.2.3.2 7.2.3.3 7.2.3.4 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A10-A7(e) |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP03 HHSP72 HHSP73 HML03 HML72 HML73 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP03 HSUP63 HSUP64 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.01.01.F.04 03.01.01.F.05 |
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
Human Resources Security (HRS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with HRS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Personnel management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ The Human Resources (HR) department provides guidance on secure HR practices for hiring, retaining and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Human Resources Security (HRS) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with HRS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with HRS domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with HRS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Personnel management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Personnel management is decentralized at a localized/regionalized function, where there are non-standardized methods to govern personnel matters across the organization. ▪ Localized HR practices are implemented for hiring, managing, training, investigating and terminating employees, contractors and other personnel that work on behalf of the organization. ▪ Requests for investigations are handled through a formal, management-approved process.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Human Resources Security (HRS) 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 HRS 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 HRS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Human Resources (HR) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain HRS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of human resources security operations (e.g., personnel management software solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with HRS 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). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to sanction personnel failing to comply with established security policies, standards and procedures.
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
- HRS-10_A01 a formal sanctions process is employed for individuals failing to comply with established cybersecurity / data privacy policies and procedures.
- HRS-10_A02 criteria and/or process for terminating system access authorization and any credentials coincide with personnel actions is established.
- HRS-10_A03 personnel or roles to be notified when a formal employee sanctions process is initiated is/are defined.
- HRS-10_A04 the time period within which organization-defined personnel or roles must be notified when a formal employee sanctions process is initiated is defined.
- HRS-10_A05 personnel or roles is/are notified within an organization-defined time period when a formal employee sanctions process is initiated, identifying the individual sanctioned and the reason for the sanction.
- HRS-10_A06 system access and credentials are terminated consistent with personnel actions such as termination or transfer.
- HRS-10_A07 the system is protected during and after personnel transfer actions.
- HRS-10_A08 individuals with access to sensitive / regulated data are identified.
- HRS-10_A09 adverse information about individuals with access to sensitive / regulated data is defined.
- HRS-10_A10 organizational systems to which individuals have access are identified.
- HRS-10_A11 mechanisms are in place to protect organizational systems if adverse information develops or is obtained about individuals with access to sensitive / regulated data.
Evidence Requirements
- E-HRS-27 Personnel Sanctions
-
Documented evidence of personnel management practices to formally sanction unacceptable behavior(s).
Human Resources
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Employee security policy acknowledgment
- Background check for sensitive roles
Small
- Security awareness policy
- Background checks
- Security onboarding checklist
Medium
- HR security program
- Background checks for all staff
- Security onboarding training
Large
- Enterprise HR security program
- Background screening service
- Automated offboarding workflows
Enterprise
- Enterprise HR security framework
- Background screening platform
- Integrated HR/IAM offboarding
- Continuous monitoring