OPS-04: Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
Mechanisms exist to identify and document Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP), or similar documentation, to enable the proper execution of day-to-day / assigned tasks.
Renumbered: Formerly OPS-01.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, OPS-04 was Security Operations Center (SOC). That control is now OPS-07.
Control Question: Does the organization identify and document Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP), or similar documentation, to enable the proper execution of day-to-day / assigned tasks?
General (33)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC2.2 CC5.1 CC5.3 CC5.3-POF3 CC7.2-POF1 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO01.09 DSS01.01 |
| COSO 2013 | 10.0 12.0 14.0 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.6 |
| ISO 27001 2022 (source) | 8.1 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.37 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 12.1.1 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.37 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 8.1 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 7.5.1 7.5.1(a) 7.5.1(b) 7.5.2 7.5.3 7.5.3(a) 7.5.3(b) A.6.2.7 A.6.2.8 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | OR-1.0 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | GOVERN 1.0 GOVERN 1.2 GOVERN 1.3 GOVERN 1.4 GOVERN 3.2 GOVERN 4.1 GOVERN 5.1 GOVERN 6.0 GOVERN 6.1 MAP 3.5 |
| NIST AI 600-1 | GOVERN 1.2 GOVERN 1.3 GV-1.5-002 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-08(32) |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.310(b) 164.316(b) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-08(32) |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.15.01.a |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.15.01.a[03] A.03.15.01.a[04] |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.02.01E 03.08.03E 03.09.03E 03.11.02E 03.12.01E 03.13.05E 03.13.07E 03.14.08E 03.14.15E 03.15.01E 03.17.02E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | A.03.02.01E.ODP[02] A.03.08.03E.ODP[01] A.03.08.03E.ODP[02] DS-A.03.09.03E.b[01] A.03.09.03E.ODP[01] DS-A.03.09.03E.b[02] DS-A.03.09.03E.c.02 A.03.09.03E.ODP[02] A.03.11.02E.ODP[01] A.03.12.01E.ODP[01] A.03.12.04E.ODP[03] A.03.13.05E.ODP[02] A.03.13.05E.ODP[03] A.03.13.07E.ODP[01] A.03.14.05E.ODP[02] A.03.14.05E.ODP[03] A.03.14.05E.ODP[04] A.03.14.08E.ODP[08] A.03.14.08E.ODP[09] A.03.14.08E.ODP[12] A.03.14.15E.ODP[03] A.03.15.01E.ODP[01] A.03.17.02E.ODP[02] A.03.17.02E.ODP[03] |
| NIST 800-218 | PO.3.2 PO.4.2 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.IM |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.1.1 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8 4.1.1 5.1.1 6.1.1 6.5.1 7.1.1 8.1.1 8.3.8 9.1.1 9.3.2 10.1.1 11.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) | 3.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.1.1 4.1.1 5.1.1 6.1.1 6.5.1 8.1.1 8.3.8 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) | 3.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) | 3.1.1 8.1.1 9.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 2.1.1 3.1.1 5.1.1 6.5.1 8.1.1 8.3.8 9.1.1 10.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) | 2.1.1 3.1.1 8.1.1 9.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.1.1 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8 4.1.1 5.1.1 6.1.1 6.5.1 7.1.1 8.1.1 8.3.8 9.1.1 9.3.2 10.1.1 11.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.1.1 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8 4.1.1 5.1.1 6.1.1 6.5.1 7.1.1 8.1.1 8.3.8 9.1.1 9.3.2 10.1.1 11.1.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ P2PE (source) | 3.1.1 9.1.1 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 9.8.1 |
US (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | AC-1.b AT-1.b AU-1.b CA-1.b CA-1.d CM-1.b CP-1.b IA-1.b IR-1.b MA-1.b MP-1.b MP-1-IS.2 PE-1.b PL-1.b PS-1.b SA-1.b SC-1.b SI-1.b |
| USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 | II.7.a.ii |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ASSET-5a THREAT-3a RISK-5a ACCESS-4a SITUATION-4a RESPONSE-5a THIRD-PARTIES-3a WORKFORCE-5a ARCHITECTURE-6a PROGRAM-3a |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | ADM:GG1.GP1 ADM:GG3.GP1 AM:GG1.GP1 AM:GG3.GP1 COMM:GG1.GP1 COMM:GG3.GP1 COMP:GG1.GP1 COMP:GG3.GP1 CTRL:GG1.GP1 CTRL:GG3.GP1 EC:GG1.GP1 EC:GG3.GP1 EF:GG1.GP1 EF:GG3.GP1 EXD:GG1.GP1 EXD:GG3.GP1 FRM:GG1.GP1 FRM:GG3.GP1 HRM:GG1.GP1 HRM:GG3.GP1 ID:GG1.GP1 ID:GG3.GP1 IMC:GG1.GP1 IMC:GG3.GP1 KIM:GG1.GP1 KIM:GG3.GP1 MA:GG1.GP1 MA:GG3.GP1 MON:GG1.GP1 MON:GG3.GP1 OPD:SG1 OPD:SG1.SP1 OPD:GG1.GP1 OPD:GG3.GP1 OPF:GG1.GP1 OPF:GG3.GP1 OTA:GG1.GP1 OTA:GG3.GP1 PM:GG1.GP1 PM:GG3.GP1 RISK:GG1.GP1 RISK:GG3.GP1 RRD:GG1.GP1 RRD:GG3.GP1 RRM:GG1.GP1 RRM:GG3.GP1 RTSE:GG1.GP1 RTSE:GG3.GP1 SC:GG1.GP1 SC:GG3.GP1 TM:GG1.GP1 TM:GG3.GP1 VAR:GG1.GP1 VAR:GG3.GP1 GG1.GP1 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 6.7.1 |
| USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 | 11.10 11.10(f) 11.10(k) |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(c)(7) 314.4(c)(8) 314.4(e) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.310(b) § 164.316(b)(2)(ii) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.310(b) § 164.316(b)(2)(ii) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-006-6 1.1 |
| USA Federal NRC 10 CFR 73.54 2015 | 73.54(f) |
| USA Federal TSA SDP 2021-02F | III.C.1 |
| USA Federal TSA / DHS 1580/82-2022-01 | III.D.2 |
| USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 | 5.260.6 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.2(b)(2) 500.3 500.8(a) |
EMEA (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | org.3 |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 6.2 Article 9.2 Article 9.4(e) |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 8.1 Article 8.2 Article 8.2(a) Article 8.2(b) Article 8.2(b)(ii) Article 8.2(c)(ii) Article 9.1 Article 10.1 Article 10.3 Article 11.1 |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.2.31 3.4.4.36 3.5.50 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 7.1 9.1 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 1100 2100 2101 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 1100 2100 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 1100 2100 2101 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 1100 2100 2101 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.5-50 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-2-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-3-4 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 40.0 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | PR.AA.S14 PR.IP.S7 RC.RP.S4 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 8.3.1.11 12.1.1 12.1.1.1 12.1.1.2 12.1.1.3 12.1.1.4 12.1.1.5 12.1.1.6 12.1.1.7 12.1.1.8 12.1.1.9 12.1.1.10 12.1.1.11 12.1.1.12 12.1.1.13 12.1.5.P 12.1.5.1.PB |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.27 A5-D1 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP01 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 3.4.12.C.01 3.4.12.C.02 5.1.11.C.01 5.1.13.C.01 5.5.3.C.01 5.5.4.C.01 5.5.5.C.01 5.5.6.C.01 16.1.24.C.01 18.4.10.C.01 20.2.15.C.01 21.1.7.C.01 21.1.7.C.02 |
Americas (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | B.1.3-1 B.1.3-2 B.1.3-3 B.2.4-2 B.2.5 |
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 5.9-BP4 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.15.01.A |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 2.2.1 2.8 3 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 2.7.2 |
| Americas Canada PIPEDA 2000 | P5-4.5.2 |
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
Security Operations (OPS) 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 OPS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with OPS 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 OPS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security operations management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security operations management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel create “run books,” or SOPs, to capture operational knowledge in documentation form for critical business functions and/or for sensitive/regulated obligations to protect the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) of the organization's TAASD.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Security Operations (OPS) 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 OPS 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 OPS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain OPS domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security operations management (e.g., SIEM solution and EDR/XDR tools). ▪ 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 OPS 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). ▪ Cybersecurity personnel create “run books,” or SOPs, to capture operational knowledge in documentation form for critical business functions and/or for sensitive/regulated obligations. ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to identify and document Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP), or similar documentation, to enable the proper execution of day-to-day / assigned tasks.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Security Operations (OPS) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
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
- OPS-04_A01 procedures needed to satisfy the security requirements for the protection of sensitive / regulated data are developed and documented.
- OPS-04_A02 procedures needed to satisfy the security requirements for the protection of sensitive / regulated data are disseminated to organizational personnel or roles.
- OPS-04_A03 the current cybersecurity / data privacy procedures are reviewed / updated frequently.
- OPS-04_A04 the current cybersecurity / data privacy procedures are reviewed / updated following events.
- OPS-04_A05 personnel or roles to whom cybersecurity / data privacy procedures are to be disseminated is/are defined.
- OPS-04_A06 events that would require procedures to be reviewed / updated are defined.
- OPS-04_A07 systems or system components that implement the security design principle of sufficient documentation are defined.
- OPS-04_A08 systems or system components implement the security design principle of sufficient documentation.
- OPS-04_A09 policies and procedures are reviewed per an organization-defined frequency.
- OPS-04_A10 policies and procedures are updated per an organization-defined frequency.
- OPS-04_A11 procedures needed to satisfy the security requirements for the protection of CUI are developed and documented.
- OPS-04_A12 procedures needed to satisfy the security requirements for the protection of CUI are disseminated to organizational personnel or roles.
- OPS-04_A13 policies and procedures are reviewed <A.03.15.01.ODP[01]: frequency>.
- OPS-04_A14 policies and procedures are updated <A.03.15.01.ODP[01]: frequency>.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-04 Cybersecurity & Data Protection Procedures
-
Documented evidence of an appropriate appropriately-scoped cybersecurity & data protection procedures. Procedures are a documented set of steps necessary to perform a specific task or process in conformance with an applicable standard. Procedures help address the question of how the organization actually operationalizes a policy, standard or control. The result of a procedure is intended to satisfy a specific control. Procedures are also commonly referred to as “control activities.”
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
- ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP)
Small
- Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
- ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP)
Medium
- Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
- ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP)
Large
- Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
- ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP)
Enterprise
- Documented Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP)
- ComplianceForge - Cybersecurity Standardized Operating Procedures (CSOP)