IAO-02.2: Specialized Assessments
Mechanisms exist to conduct specialized assessments for: (1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations; (2) Monitoring capabilities; (3) Mobile devices; (4) Databases; (5) Application security; (6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT, OT, etc.); (7) Vulnerability management; (8) Malicious code; (9) Insider threats; (10) Performance/load testing; and/or (11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT).
Control Question: Does the organization conduct specialized assessments for: (1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations; (2) Monitoring capabilities; (3) Mobile devices; (4) Databases; (5) Application security; (6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT, OT, etc.); (7) Vulnerability management; (8) Malicious code; (9) Insider threats; (10) Performance/load testing; and/or (11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) testing?
General (23)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC4.1 CC4.1-POF4 |
| COSO 2017 | Principle 16 |
| CSA CCM 4 | AIS-05 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | IOT-01 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | CA-02(02) |
| GovRAMP High | CA-02(02) |
| ISO/SAE 21434 2021 | RQ-05-17 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.21 5.23 8.29 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 5.3.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | A.6.2.5 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | MAP 2.3 MEASURE 3.1 MEASURE 3.2 |
| NIST 800-37 R2 | A-1 A-2 |
| NIST 800-39 | 3.2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | CA-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | CA-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | CA-2(2) SA-11(5) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | CA-2(2) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | SA-11(5) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | CA-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | CA-2(2) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | CA-2(2) |
| OWASP Top 10 2021 | A01:2021 A02:2021 A03:2021 A04:2021 A05:2021 A06:2021 A07:2021 A08:2021 A09:2021 A10:2021 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | IAO-02.2 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CISA CPG 2022 | 1.F |
| US FedRAMP R4 | CA-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | CA-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | CA-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | CA-2(2) |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | CA-2(2) |
| US HIPAA HICP Large Practice | 9.L.C |
| US IRS 1075 | SA-11(5) |
| US TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.F.2.c |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | CA-2(2) |
EMEA (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.6.2(70) 3.6.2(71) |
| EMEA Germany Banking Supervisory Requirements for IT (BAIT) | 7.11 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 17.2 17.16 |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0100 ISM-1137 ISM-1570 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 4.3.20.C.01 4.3.20.C.02 4.3.20.C.03 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 5.7.4 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to conduct specialized assessments for: (1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations; (2) Monitoring capabilities; (3) Mobile devices; (4) Databases; (5) Application security; (6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT, OT, etc.); (7) Vulnerability management; (8) Malicious code; (9) Insider threats; (10) Performance/load testing; and/or (11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT).
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Information Assurance (IA) is ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Pre-production security testing is decentralized.
- IT personnel implement and maintain an informal process to conduct limited control testing of High Value Assets (HVAs) to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/ or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data privacy control testing.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Information Assurance (IA) is requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but not consistently across the enterprise. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Pre-production security testing is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data privacy control testing.
- IT personnel implement and maintain an established a limited Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct limited control testing to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/ or contractual requirements for pre-production cybersecurity and data privacy control testing.
- IAP operations focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to conduct specialized assessments for specific statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations, as well as business-critical technologies.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Information Assurance (IA) is standardized across the enterprise and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain an established Information Assurance Program (IAP) capability to conduct “business as usual” pre-production cybersecurity and data privacy control testing focused on the concept of “security and data privacy be design and by default.”
- The IAP validates that systems/applications/services/processes are both secure and compliant.
- A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function, facilitates the implementation of cybersecurity and data protection controls to ensure that secure engineering practices are designed and implemented throughout the lifecycle of systems, applications and services both internal and external to the organization.
- A Project Management Office (PMO), or project management function, ensures project involvement for IAP as part of the organization's established project management processes.
- A Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) or similar mechanism, exists to document planned remediation actions to correct weaknesses or deficiencies noted during the assessment of the security controls, helping to reduce or eliminate known vulnerabilities.
- Administrative processes prevent systems/applications/services/processes from “going live” in a production environment without first going through the IAP process.
- The IAP uses a tiered approach to conformity testing, based on (1) the sensitivity of data that is stored, processed and/ or transmitted and (2) the criticality of the system/application/service/process.
- Administrative processes and technologies exist to conduct specialized assessments for specific statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations, as well as business-critical technologies.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Information Assurance (IA) is metrics driven and provides sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
- Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
- Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
- Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
- Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
- Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in the review process for proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to conduct specialized assessments for: (1) Statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations; (2) Monitoring capabilities; (3) Mobile devices; (4) Databases; (5) Application security; (6) Embedded technologies (e.g., IoT, OT, etc.); (7) Vulnerability management; (8) Malicious code; (9) Insider threats; (10) Performance/load testing; and/or (11) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technologies (AAT).
Assessment Objectives
- IAO-02.2_A01 the frequency at which to include specialized assessments as part of the control assessment is defined.
- IAO-02.2_A02 other forms of announced or unannounced assessment are defined.
- IAO-02.2_A03 organization-defined specialized assessment frequencies are included as part of control assessments.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Small
- Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Medium
- Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Large
- Controls Validation Testing (CVT)
Enterprise
- Controls Validation Testing (CVT)