Skip to main content

RSK-06: Material Risks

RSK 7 — High Govern

Mechanisms exist to define criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk.

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-16.1 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, RSK-06 was Risk Remediation. That control is now RSK-17.

Control Question: Does the organization define criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk?

General (4)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA IoT SCF 2 RSM-01
ISO 31000 2018 5.4.2
ISO 42001 2023 6.1.2(c) 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)
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.E(2)(b)
US (2)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.105(b) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(2)
USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.4(b) 500.4(b)(3) 500.4(b)(5) 500.9(b)(1) 500.9(b)(2)
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia SOCI 2028 30AH

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

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 define criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk.

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

  1. RSK-06_A01 organization-specific criteria to designate a risk as a "material risk," as it pertains to materiality considerations, are documented.

Evidence Requirements

E-GOV-16 Material Risks

Documented evidence of specific risks that are categorized as material risks.

Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
E-RSK-10 Material Risk Definition

Documented evidence of criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk.

Risk Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Basic risk register with materiality threshold criteria

Small

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Risk register with documented materiality criteria
  • Defined risk scoring methodology

Medium

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Formal risk register with quantitative/qualitative materiality thresholds
  • GRC platform risk management module

Large

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Formal materiality criteria for risks aligned to risk appetite
  • Board-approved material risk thresholds
  • GRC platform with automated risk scoring and materiality flagging

Enterprise

  • SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
  • Enterprise material risk framework aligned to SEC, SOX, and applicable regulators
  • Quantitative risk analysis (e.g., FAIR methodology)
  • Automated material risk identification and escalation

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.