RSK-01.1: Risk Framing
Mechanisms exist to identify: (1) Assumptions affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (2) Constraints affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (3) The organizational risk tolerance; and (4) Priorities, benefits and trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk.
Control Question: Does the organization identify: (1) Assumptions affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (2) Constraints affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (3) The organizational risk tolerance; and (4) Priorities, benefits and trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk?
General (38)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2-POF11 CC3.1-POF1 CC3.1-POF16 CC3.1-POF3 CC3.1-POF6 CC3.2 CC3.2-POF2 CC3.2-POF8 CC7.3-POF6 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 16.6 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 16.6 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 16.6 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO12.04 |
| COSO 2017 | Principle 7 |
| CSA CCM 4 | A&A-06 CEK-07 TVM-08 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | RSM-01 RSM-02 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 2021 | RQ-06-30.a RQ-06-30.b RQ-06-30.c RQ-06-30.d |
| ISO 27001 2022 (source) | 6.1.2 6.1.2(a) 6.1.2(a)(1) 6.1.2(a)(2) 6.1.2(b) 6.1.2(c) 6.1.2(c)(1) 6.1.2(c)(2) 6.1.2(d) 6.1.2(d)(1) 6.1.2(d)(2) 6.1.2(d)(3) 6.1.2(e) 6.1.2(e)(1) 6.1.2(e)(2) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.8 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 6.1.2(a) |
| ISO 31000 2009 | 5.1 5.2 5.3 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 4.3.3 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 6.1.2(d) 6.1.2(d)(1) 6.1.2(d)(2) 6.1.2(d)(3) 6.1.2(e) 6.1.2(e)(1) 6.1.2(e)(2) 6.1.4 8.4 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.1 | OR-2.0 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | GOVERN 1.3 GOVERN 1.4 |
| NIST AI 600-1 | MP-2.1-001 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | ID.DE-P1 GV.RM-P1 GV.RM-P2 GV.RM-P3 |
| NIST 800-39 | 3.1 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.11.01.a |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.11.01.a |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.OC-01 GV.RM GV.RM-04 GV.RM-06 GV.RM-07 ID ID.RA-05 ID.RA-06 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 12.3.1 12.3.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 12.3.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 12.3.1 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 12.3.1 12.3.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 12.3.1 |
| SWIFT CSF 2023 | 7.4A |
| TISAX ISA 6 | 1.4.1 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | RSK-01.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | RSK-01.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | RSK-01.1 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | RSK-01.1 |
US (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US C2M2 2.1 | RISK-2.C.MIL2 |
| US DHS ZTCF | DEV-05 |
| US FCA CRM | 609.930(a) |
| US HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 (source) | 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| US HIPAA Security Rule / NIST SP 800-66 R2 (source) | 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| US SEC Cybersecurity Rule | 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(i) |
| US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(b)(1) |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1(10) 3.6.1(66) 3.7.2(82) |
| EMEA EU DORA | 8.2 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 2.1.2(c) |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 2.2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 1-3-1-4 1-3-1-5 |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.7.1 4.4.7.2 4.4.7.3 4.4.7.4 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 23.2.16.C.01 23.2.17.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 4.2.1 4.3.2 |
Americas (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC | 5.5 |
| Americas Canada CSAG | 6.15 6.24 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 | 1.3 3.1.8 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.11.01.A |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to identify: (1) Assumptions affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (2) Constraints affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (3) The organizational risk tolerance; and (4) Priorities, benefits and trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Risk Management efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- IT personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
- Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
- Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Risk Management efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for risk management. o Implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
- Risk management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
- Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
- Data/process owners work with IT/cybersecurity personnel and Data Protection Officers (DPOs) to ensure applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations are properly addressed, including the storage, transmission and processing of sensitive/regulated data.
- IT/cybersecurity personnel:
- Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Risk Management efforts are standardized across the organization 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: o Analyzes the organization's business strategy to determine prioritized and authoritative guidance for Risk Management (RM) practices. o Develops a security-focused Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that documents management, operational and technical measures to apply defense-in-depth techniques across the enterprise for RM. o Provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data with regards to RM. o Maintains a common taxonomy of risk-relevant terminology to minimize assumptions and misunderstandings. o Enables data/process owners to conduct annual risk assessment of their operations that includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction of the organization's systems and data. o Assists users in making informed risk decisions to ensure data and processes are appropriately protected. o Enables the documentation of risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring to support statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations for risk management practices. o Maintains a centralized risk register to reflect an active recording and disposition of identified risks. The risk register identifies and assigns a risk ranking to vulnerabilities and risks that is based on industry-recognized practices and facilitates monitoring and reporting of those risks. o Governs supply chain risks associated with the development, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of systems, system components and services.
- A formal Risk Management Program (RMP) provides enterprise-wide guidance on how risk is to be identified, framed (e.g., risk appetite, risk tolerance, risk thresholds, etc.) assessed, mitigated/remediated and reported.
- Criteria to define materiality for risk management decisions is defined.
- A steering committee is formally established to provide executive oversight of the cybersecurity and data privacy program, including appropriately resourcing risk management operations.
- A formally-documented Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) plan exists to identify, assess and mitigate supply chain-related risks and threats;
- The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or similar function with technical competence to address cybersecurity concerns,
- A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function:
- An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes assets according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes, applying the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management efforts are metrics driven and provide 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 reviewing and approving 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 identify: (1) Assumptions affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (2) Constraints affecting risk assessments, risk response and risk monitoring; (3) The organizational risk tolerance; and (4) Priorities, benefits and trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk.
Assessment Objectives
- RSK-01.1_A01 the personnel to receive the results of risk framing activities is/are defined.
- RSK-01.1_A02 the frequency for reviewing and updating risk framing considerations is defined.
- RSK-01.1_A03 assumptions affecting risk assessments are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A04 assumptions affecting risk responses are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A05 assumptions affecting risk monitoring are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A06 constraints affecting risk assessments are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A07 constraints affecting risk responses are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A08 constraints affecting risk monitoring are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A09 priorities considered by the organization for managing risk are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A10 trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk are identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A11 organizational risk tolerance is identified and documented.
- RSK-01.1_A12 the results of risk framing activities are distributed to personnel.
- RSK-01.1_A13 risk framing considerations are reviewed / updated frequently.
- RSK-01.1_A14 the risk (including supply chain risk) of unauthorized disclosure resulting from the processing, storage, or transmission of sensitive / regulated data is assessed.
- RSK-01.1_A15 the risk (including supply chain risk) of unauthorized disclosure resulting from the processing, storage, or transmission of CUI is assessed.
Evidence Requirements
- E-RSK-01 Risk Management Program (RMP)
-
Documented evidence of a Risk Management Program (RMP). This is program-level documentation in the form of a runbook, playbook or a similar format provides guidance on organizational practices that support existing policies and standards.
Risk Management - E-RSK-06 Risk Threshold
-
Documented evidence the organization has a defined risk threshold.
Risk Management - E-RSK-07 Risk Tolerance
-
Documented evidence the organization has a defined risk tolerance.
Risk Management - E-RSK-08 Risk Appetite
-
Documented evidence the organization has a defined risk appetite.
Risk Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
Small
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
Medium
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
Large
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
Enterprise
- Risk Management Program (RMP)