RSK-14: Risk Register
Mechanisms exist to maintain a risk register that facilitates monitoring and reporting of risks.
Renumbered: Formerly RSK-04.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization maintain a risk register that facilitates monitoring and reporting of risks?
General (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC4.2-POF3 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO12.03 APO12.05 |
| COSO 2013 | 7.0 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | A&A-06 CEK-07 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 4.3.6 5.6 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 6.1.2 9.3.2(a) 9.3.2(b) |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | GOVERN 1.5 MEASURE 3.0 MEASURE 3.1 MEASURE 3.2 MANAGE 1.4 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.12.02.a.01 03.12.02.a.02 |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.12.02.a.01 A.03.12.02.a.02 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.RM-06 ID ID.RA-01 |
| 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 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 9.3 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 1.4.1 |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RISK-2e RISK-2f RISK-3f |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(c)(2) |
| USA Federal NSF RIG 2025 | 5.3.4 |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.105(b) |
| USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 | 609.930(a) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(b) |
| USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 | 5.260.3 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(a) |
EMEA (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.A-28 V-108 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OIS-07.01B.5 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 3.1(d)(iii) Article 3.1(d)(iv) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.10 3.3.1.13(d) |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 4201 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 4201 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 4201 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | 4.2, Stage 2.2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-4-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 1-2-1-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 1-3-1-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.2.1.4-1.c 3.2.1.1-2.2 |
APAC (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia CCM 2026 | GOV-06 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 13.0 32 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.RM.S4 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.7.2 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 9.2(h) |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP65 HML64 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 3.4.4 3.4.4(a) 3.4.4(b) 3.4.4(c) 3.4.4(d) 3.4.4(g) 3.4.5 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 4.5.2 |
Americas (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 | 5.5-BP4 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.12.02.A.01 03.12.02.A.02 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1.3 3.1.1 |
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 maintain a risk register that facilitates monitoring and reporting of risks.
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
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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Assessment Objectives
- RSK-14_A01 a risk register is maintained to facilitate the monitoring and reporting of risks.
Evidence Requirements
- E-RSK-03 Plan of Actions & Milestones (POA&M) / Risk Register
-
Documented evidence of a POA&M, or risk register, that tracks control deficiencies from identification through remediation.
Risk Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
- Risk register
- Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Small
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
- Risk register
- Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Medium
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
- Risk register
- Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Large
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
- Risk register
- Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
Enterprise
- Risk Management Program (RMP)
- Risk register
- Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)