PRI-10: Security of Personal Data (PD)
Mechanisms exist to ensure Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
Renumbered: Formerly PRI-01.6 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, PRI-10 was Data Quality Management. That control is now DCH-33.2.
Control Question: Does the organization ensure Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD?
General (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | M1.0-POF6 M1.4-POF1 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.1-POF13 P4.2-POF2 |
| APEC Privacy Framework 2015 | 7 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.34 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.34 |
| ISO 29100 2024 | 6.11 |
| NIST AI 600-1 | MP-4.1-001 |
| OECD Privacy Principles | 5 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 12.9.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 12.9.1 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 7.0 7.1 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 7.1.2 |
US (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 | II.4.a |
| USA Federal 45 CFR 155.260 | 155.260(a)(3)(vii) |
| USA Federal COPPA 2024 | Sec. 6502.(b)(1)(D) |
| USA Federal FIPPS 1973 | 8.0 |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7023(d)(4) 7024(f) |
| USA Colorado Colorado Privacy Act 2021 | 6-1-1305(2)(a) 6-1-1305(4) 6-1-1308(5) |
| USA Illinois BIPA 2008 | 15(e)(1) 15(e)(2) |
| USA Illinois PIPA 2006 | 45(a) |
| USA Montana CDPA 2025 | 30-14-2812(1)(b) 30-14-2813(1)(b) 30-14-2813(2)(a) 30-14-2816(6) 30-14-2818(1)(a) |
| USA Nevada Privacy Law 2023 | 603A.210.1 |
| USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 | 5.260.1 |
| USA New York SHIELD Act 2019 | 899-bb.2(a) |
| USA Oregon CPA 2023 | Section 5(1)(c) Section 6(1)(b) |
| USA Oregon 646A 2025 | 646A.578(1)(c) |
| USA Tennessee TIPA 2025 | 47-18-3204(a)(3) |
| USA Texas BC521 2009 | 521.052(a) |
| USA Texas TRAIGA 2025 | Sec. 3 / 541.104(a)(2) |
| USA Virginia CDPA 2023 | 59.1-578.A.3 59.1-579.A.1 59.1-579.B.1 |
| USA Vermont Act 171 2018 | 2447(a)(2) |
EMEA (22)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Austria FAPPD 2000 | § 6(1) § 13(1) § 54(1) |
| EMEA Belgium Act 8 1992 | Title 2, Chapter II, Art. 34(2) Title 2, Chapter III, Art. 45(4) Title 2, Chapter IV, Section 1, Art. 50 Title 2, Chapter IV, Section 1, Art. 51(1) Title 2, Chapter IV, Section 1, Art. 51(2) Title 2, Chapter IV, Section 4, Art. 60(1) Title 2, Chapter IV, Section 4, Art. 60(2) |
| EMEA Switzerland FADP 2025 | 2.1.7.2 2.1.8.1 2.1.8.2 |
| EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 | 2.1.1.22(2)5 2.1.1.22(2)6 2.1.1.22(2)7 2.1.2.28(1) 3.2.53 3.4.62(5)2 3.4.64(1) 3.4.64(2)1 3.4.64(2)2 3.4.64(3) 3.4.64(3)1 3.4.64(3)2 3.4.64(3)3 3.4.64(3)4 3.4.64(3)5 3.4.64(3)6 3.4.64(3)7 3.4.64(3)8 3.4.64(3)9 3.4.64(3)10 3.4.64(3)11 3.4.64(3)12 3.4.64(3)13 3.4.64(3)14 3.4.71(2) |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | mp.info.1 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 5(a) Article 5(b) Article 5(c) Article 5(d) Article 5(e) Article 5(f) Article 5(g) |
| EMEA EU AI Act | Article 10.5(b) Article 10.5(c) |
| EMEA EU GDPR 2016 | Article 5.1(f) Article 24.1 Article 25.1 Article 25.2 Article 32.1 Article 32.1(a) Article 32.1(b) |
| EMEA UK DPA 2018 | Section 55(3) Section 55(3)(a) Section 55(3)(b) Section 55(3)(c) Section 55(3)(d) Section 56(1) Section 56(2) Section 56(3) Section 57(1) Section 57(1)(a) Section 57(1)(b) Section 57(2) Section 57(3) Section 57(4) Section 57(4)(a) Section 57(4)(b) Section 57(4)(c) Section 57(4)(d) Section 57(5) Section 66(1) Section 66(2) Section 66(2)(a) Section 66(2)(b) Section 66(2)(c) Section 66(2)(d) Section 66(3) |
| EMEA Greece PIRPPD 1997 | B.9.2.f B.10.1 B.10.2 B.10.3 |
| EMEA Hungary Act CXII 2011 | II.6.7(2) II.6.7(3) II.6.7(4) II.6.7(5)(a) II.6.7(5)(b) II.6.7(5)(c) II.6.7(5)(d) II.6.7(5)(e) II.6.7(5)(f) II.6.7(6) |
| EMEA Ireland DPA 2018 | s.72 s.75 s.76 s.77 s.78 |
| EMEA Israel PPL 2025 | s.17 |
| EMEA Italy PDPC 2018 | Article 115(1) Article 115(2) |
| EMEA Kenya DPA 2019 | IV.41(1) IV.41(1)(a) IV.41(1)(b) IV.41(2) IV.41(3) IV.41(3)(a) IV.41(3)(b) IV.41(3)(c) IV.41(3)(d) IV.41(3)(e) IV.41(4) IV.41(4)(a) IV.41(4)(b) IV.41(4)(c) IV.41(4)(d) IV.41(4)(e) IV.41(4)(f) IV.42(1) IV.42(1)(a) IV.42(1)(b) IV.42(1)(c) IV.42(1)(d) IV.42(2) IV.42(2)(a) IV.42(2)(b) IV.42(3) IV.42(4) |
| EMEA Nigeria DPR 2019 | 2.1(1)(d) 2.6 |
| EMEA Qatar PDPPL 2020 | 3.13 |
| EMEA Russia 152-FZ 2025 | Art. 7 Art. 18.1 Art. 19 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia PDPL | Article 19 |
| EMEA Serbia 87/2018 | II.6(5) II.8 IV.1.41 IV.1.42 IV.1.42(1) IV.1.42(2) IV.2.50 IV.2.50(2) IV.2.50(3) IV.2.50(4) IV.2.51 IV.2.51(1) IV.2.51(2) IV.2.51(3) IV.2.51(4) IV.2.51(5) IV.2.51(6) IV.2.51(7) IV.2.51(8) IV.2.51(9) IV.2.51(10) |
| EMEA Turkey LDDP 2016 | 12(1) 12(1)(a) 12(1)(b) 12(1)(c) 12(2) 12(3) 12(4) 12(5) |
| EMEA South Africa POPIA 2013 | 3.A.7.19(1) 3.A.7.19(1)(a) 3.A.7.19(1)(b) 3.A.7.19(2) 3.A.7.19(2)(a) 3.A.7.19(2)(b) 3.A.7.19(2)(c) 3.A.7.19(2)(d) 3.A.7.19(3) |
APAC (14)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia IoT Code of Practice 2024 | 5.0 |
| APAC Australian Privacy Principles 2026 | 4.11.1 4.11.1.a 4.11.1.b |
| APAC China DNSIP 2012 | IV |
| APAC China Cybersecurity Law 2017 | Article 42 |
| APAC China Privacy Law 2021 | Article 9 |
| APAC Hong Kong PDO 2022 | Schedule 1 - 4(1) Schedule 1 - 4(1)(a) Schedule 1 - 4(1)(b) Schedule 1 - 4(1)(c) Schedule 1 - 4(1)(d) Schedule 1 - 4(1)(e) |
| APAC India DPDPA 2023 | 8(4) 8(5) |
| APAC India ITR 2011 | 5(8) 8(2) |
| APAC Japan APPI 2020 | IV.1.20 |
| APAC Malaysia PDPA 2010 | 9(1) 9(1)(a) 9(1)(b) 9(1)(c) 9(1)(d) 9(1)(e) 9(2) 9(2)(a) 9(2)(b) |
| APAC New Zealand Privacy Act of 2020 | 3.1.22.5(a) 3.1.22.5(a)(i) 3.1.22.5(a)(ii) 3.1.22.5(a)(iii) |
| APAC Philippines DPA 2012 | V.20(a) V.20(b) V.20(c) V.20(c)(1) V.20(c)(2) V.20(c)(3) V.20(c)(4) V.20(d) V.20(e) |
| APAC Singapore PDPA 2012 | 6.24 6.24(a) 6.24(b) |
| APAC Taiwan PDPA 2025 | III.20-1 |
Americas (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | E.1.2-1 |
| Americas Bahamas DPA 2003 | II.5(1)(f) II.9(2) II.11(1) II.11(1)(a) II.11(1)(b) II.11(2) V.43(4)(d) V.43(4)(e) V.52(1) V.52(2) V.52(2)(a) V.52(2)(b) V.52(2)(c) V.52(2)(d) V.52(4) |
| Americas Brazil LGPD 2018 | VII.I.46 VII.I.46.1 VII.I.47 VII.I.49 VII.II.50 VII.II.50.1 VII.II.50.2 VII.II.50.2.I VII.II.50.2.I(a) VII.II.50.2.I(b) VII.II.50.2.I(c) VII.II.50.2.I(d) VII.II.50.2.I(e) VII.II.50.2.I(f) VII.II.50.2.I(g) VII.II.50.2.I(h) VII.II.50.2.II |
| Americas Canada PIPEDA 2000 | P1-4.1.4(a) P7-4.7 P7-4.7.1 P7-4.7.2 P7-4.7.3 |
| Americas Chile Act 19628 1999 | I.7 I.11 |
| Americas Colombia Law 1581 2012 | II.4(g) VI.17(d) |
| Americas Mexico FDPA 2010 | II.19 II.21 |
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
Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management 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 PRI 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 ensure Personal Data (PD) is protected by logical and physical security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
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
- PRI-10_A01 Personal Data (PD) is protected by security safeguards that are sufficient and appropriately scoped to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the PD.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Data classification program
- Data privacy program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Small
- Data classification program
- Data privacy program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Medium
- Data classification program
- Data privacy program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Large
- Data classification program
- Data privacy program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management
Enterprise
- Data classification program
- Data privacy program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Product / project management