Skip to main content

RSK-07: Risk-Based Security Categorization

RSK 9 — Critical Identify

Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations that: (1) Document the security categorization results (including supporting rationale) in the security plan for systems; and (2) Ensure the security categorization decision is reviewed and approved by the asset owner.

Renumbered: Formerly RSK-02 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, RSK-07 was Risk Assessment Update. That control is now RSK-13.2.

Control Question: Does the organization categorize Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations that: (1) Document the security categorization results (including supporting rationale) in the security plan for systems; and (2) Ensure the security categorization decision is reviewed and approved by the asset owner?

General (43)
US (16)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OIS-08.02B.1 AM-02.03B AM-09.04B
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 5.2
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.3.3-17
EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 68.a
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 9.2(d) 11.3(b)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.11.01.A

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 categorize TAASD in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations that: (1) Document the security categorization results (including supporting rationale) in the security plan for systems; and (2) Ensure the security categorization decision is reviewed and approved by the asset owner.

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

  1. RSK-07_A01 systems, applications, services and the information processed, stored and/or transmitted are categorized.
  2. RSK-07_A02 the security categorization results, including supporting rationale, are documented in the security plan for the system.
  3. RSK-07_A03 the authorizing official or authorizing official designated representative reviews and approves the security categorization decision.

Evidence Requirements

E-RSK-04 Cybersecurity Risk Assessment (RA)

Documented evidence of a cybersecurity-specific risk assessment.

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)

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.