RSK-07.1: Impact-Level Prioritization
Mechanisms exist to prioritize the impact level for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to prevent potential disruptions.
Renumbered: Formerly RSK-02.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization prioritize the impact level for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to prevent potential disruptions?
General (14)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC3.2-POF4 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 16.6 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 16.6 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 16.6 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | A&A-06 BCR-02 CEK-07 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | RSM-01 RSM-02 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 6.1.2(e)(2) |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 6.1.2(e)(2) |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | MAP 5.1 MANAGE 1.2 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | RA-02(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | RA-02(01) |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.11.01.a 03.14.03.b |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.11.01.a A.03.14.03.a |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-05 ID.RA-06 |
US (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | RISK:SG4 |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-002-5.1a 1.1 CIP-002-5.1a 1.2 CIP-002-5.1a 1.3 |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(b) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(b)(3) |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | AM-01.01AC.1 AM-09.03AC AM-09.04AC |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 23.2.16.C.01 23.2.17.C.01 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.11.01.A 03.14.03.B |
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
Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ 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. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
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 prioritize the impact level for Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) to prevent potential disruptions.
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
- RSK-07.1_A01 an impact-level prioritization of organizational systems is conducted to obtain additional granularity on system impact levels.
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)