RSK-16: Risk Response
Mechanisms exist to ensure proper risk response actions were performed to remediate findings from security, compliance and/or resilience-related: (1) Assessments; (2) Audits; and/or (3) Incidents.
Renumbered: Formerly RSK-06.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization ensure proper risk response actions were performed to remediate findings from security, compliance and/or resilience-related: (1) Assessments; (2) Audits; and/or (3) Incidents?
General (37)
US (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RISK-4e |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 | RA.L3-3.11.6E |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | RA-7 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | RA-07 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | RA-07 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | RA-07 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | RA-07 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | RA-7 |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(c)(2) |
| USA Federal NRC 10 CFR 73.54 2015 | 73.54(d)(2) |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1) |
| USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 | 609.930(a) |
| USA Montana CDPA 2025 | 30-14-2819(5) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(b)(3) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | RA-07 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | RA-07 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | RA-07 |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | COM-03.03B |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.pl.3 |
| EMEA EU AI Act | Article 9.4 Article 9.5 Article 9.5(a) Article 9.5(b) |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 27.2(h)(i) Article 27.2(k)(iii) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.13(c) |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.6-46 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.2.1.4-1.d |
APAC (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 16(d) |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.7.4 4.4.8.1 4.4.8.2 4.4.8.5 4.7.1.3 4.7.1.6 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 3.4.2(d) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.11.02.B 03.11.04 |
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 ensure proper risk response actions were performed to remediate findings from security, compliance and/or resilience-related: (1) Assessments; (2) Audits; and/or (3) Incidents.
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-16_A01 findings from security assessments are responded to in accordance with organizational risk tolerance.
- RSK-16_A02 findings from security assessments are responded to.
- RSK-16_A03 findings from security monitoring are responded to.
- RSK-16_A04 findings from security audits are responded to.
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)