RSK-05: 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.
Renumbered: Formerly RSK-01.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, RSK-05 was Risk Ranking. That control is now RSK-15.
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 (41)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2-POF11 CC3.1-POF1 CC3.1-POF3 CC3.1-POF6 CC3.1-POF16 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 | APO12.01 APO12.04 |
| COSO 2013 | 7.0 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | A&A-06 CEK-07 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | RSM-01 RSM-02 |
| 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 27017 2015 | 6.1.5 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.8 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 6.1.2(a) |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.3 5.4.2 6.4.2 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 4.3.3 4.3.3(a) 4.3.3(b) 4.3.3(c) 6.4 6.5 |
| 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 5.3.1 | 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 800-39 | 3.1 TASK 1-1 TASK 1-2 TASK 1-4 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PM-28 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | 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 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | GV.RM-P3 |
| 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 2025 | 7.4A |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 1.4.1 |
| UN R155 | 7.2.2.2(b) |
| UN ECE WP.29 | 7.2.2.2(b) |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RISK-2m RISK-3b SITUATION-2h |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| USA Federal NRC 10 CFR 73.54 2015 | 73.54(d)(2) |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(i) |
| USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 | 609.930(a) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(b) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(b)(1) |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OIS-08.01AC.3 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.pl.3 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 14(2) |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 8.2 |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.10 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 2.1.2(c) |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | 4.2, Stage 2.1 |
APAC (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 16(b) 27 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.6.1 4.4.7.2 4.4.7.3 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 8.1 9.2(a) 11.3(a) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 23.2.16.C.01 23.2.17.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 4.2.1 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.11.01.A |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1.3 3.1.8 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 1.3.2 3.1.8 |
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or 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. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ 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. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ 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 RSK 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 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 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management (RSK) 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
- RSK-05_A01 the personnel to receive the results of risk framing activities is/are defined.
- RSK-05_A02 the frequency for reviewing and updating risk framing considerations is defined.
- RSK-05_A03 assumptions affecting risk assessments are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A04 assumptions affecting risk responses are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A05 assumptions affecting risk monitoring are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A06 constraints affecting risk assessments are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A07 constraints affecting risk responses are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A08 constraints affecting risk monitoring are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A09 priorities considered by the organization for managing risk are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A10 trade-offs considered by the organization for managing risk are identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A11 organizational risk tolerance is identified and documented.
- RSK-05_A12 the results of risk framing activities are distributed to personnel.
- RSK-05_A13 risk framing considerations are reviewed / updated frequently.
- RSK-05_A14 the risk (including supply chain risk) of unauthorized disclosure resulting from the processing, storage, or transmission of sensitive / regulated data is assessed.
- RSK-05_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)