Skip to main content

SAT-02: Security, Compliance & Resilience-Minded Workforce

SAT 8 — High Govern

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the implementation of security workforce development and awareness controls.

Renumbered: Formerly SAT-01 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, SAT-02 was Cybersecurity & Data Protection Awareness Training. That control is now SAT-04.

Control Question: Does the organization facilitate the implementation of security workforce development and awareness controls?

General (55)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC1.4 CC1.4-POF3 CC2.2-POF8 CC2.2-POF12
BSI Standard 200-1 6.0
CIS CSC 8.1 14.0 14.1
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 14.1
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 14.1
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 14.1
COSO 2013 4.0
CSA CCM 4.1.0 HRS-11
CSA IoT SCF 2 TRN-01 TRN-02
GovRAMP AT-01
GovRAMP Low AT-01
GovRAMP Low+ AT-01
GovRAMP Moderate AT-01
GovRAMP High AT-01
IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management 3.4
ISO/SAE 21434 2021 RQ-05-06
ISO 27001 2022 (source) 7.4 7.4(a) 7.4(b) 7.4(c) 7.4(d)
ISO 27002 2022 6.3
ISO 27018 2025 6.3
ISO 31000 2018 6.2
MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 OR-3.3
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.C(4)(a)
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 GOVERN 2.0 GOVERN 4.1
NIST 800-53 R4 AT-1 PM-13
NIST 800-53 R5.2 AT-01 PM-13
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) AT-01
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AT-01
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AT-01
NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) AT-01 PM-13
NIST SP 800-66 R2 164.308(a)(5)
NIST 800-82 R3 AT-01 PM-13
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay AT-01 PM-13
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AT-01 PM-13
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AT-01 PM-13
NIST 800-161 R1 AT-1 PM-13
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline AT-1
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 AT-1 PM-13
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 AT-1 PM-13
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) NFO - AT-1
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.02.01.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.02.01.ODP[01] A.03.02.01.ODP[02] A.03.02.01.a.01[01]
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.AT
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 GV.AT-P GV.AT-P1 GV.AT-P2 GV.AT-P3 GV.AT-P4
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 8.3.8 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6 12.6.1 12.6.2 12.6.3 A3.1.4
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 8.3.8 12.6.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 8.3.8 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 12.6.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 8.3.8 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1 12.6.2 12.6.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 8.3.8 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1 12.6.2 12.6.3
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ P2PE (source) 9.5.1 9.5.1.3 12.6.1
SCF DPMP 2026 1.6 7.9
SWIFT CSF 2025 7.2
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 8.2.3
US (25)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 AT-1 AT-1.e AT-1-IS.1 PM-13
USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 2.I
USA Federal DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.UNI.UATRA
USA Federal C2M2 2.1 WORKFORCE-2a WORKFORCE-2b WORKFORCE-2c WORKFORCE-4f
USA Federal DoW BaTB IT 2026 10
USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 OTA:SG1 OTA:SG1.SP1 OTA:SG1.SP2 OTA:SG1.SP3 OTA:SG2 OTA:SG2.SP1 OTA:SG2.SP2 OTA:SG2.SP3 OTA:SG3 OTA:SG3.SP1 OTA:SG3.SP2 OTA:SG3.SP3 OTA:SG4 OTA:SG4.SP1 OTA:SG4.SP2 OTA:SG4.SP3 OTA:GG1.GP1 OTA:GG2 OTA:GG2.GP2
USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 AT-1
USA Federal 21 CFR Part 11 2025 11.10
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) AT-01
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) AT-01
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) AT-01
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) AT-01
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 2.D.2 AT-1
USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F 101.625(d)(8) 101.650(d)
USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 314.4(e)(1)
USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 § 164.308(a)(5)(i)
USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 § 164.308(a)(5)(i)
USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 CIP-003-8 1.2.1
USA Federal NISPOM 2020 §117.18(b)(3)
USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 609.930(c)(4)
USA California CCPA 2025 7123(c)(12)
USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.3(h) 500.10(a)(2) 500.14(a)(3)
USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 AT-01
USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 AT-01
USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 AT-01
EMEA (14)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 4.9
EMEA Germany C5 2026 HR-03.01B
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 mp.per.3 mp.per.4
EMEA EU DORA 2023 Article 13.6
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 28.2(h)
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.4.7.49
EMEA EU NIS2 2022 Article 21.2(g)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 8.1.3 8.2.5
EMEA UK CAF 4.0 B6.a
EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 3.4.1-30.g 3.4.7-49
EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 1-9-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 1-10-1 1-10-2
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 1-8-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 3.1.6 3.1.6.1 3.1.6.2 3.1.6.2.a 3.1.6.2.b 3.1.6.2.c 3.1.6.3 3.1.6.4 3.1.6.5 3.1.6.5.a 3.1.6.5.b 3.1.6.5.c
APAC (10)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-0252 ISM-0720 ISM-0735 ISM-2022
APAC China Cybersecurity Law 2017 Article 34(2)
APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 GV.RR.S6 PR.AT.S1
APAC Japan ISMAP 7.2.2.1 7.2.2.2 7.2.2.3 7.2.2.4 7.2.2.5 7.2.2.6 7.2.2.17 7.2.2.18
APAC South Korea PIPA 2011 III.2.28(2)
APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 HHSP22 HML22
APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 HSUP20
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 9.1.4.C.01
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 9.1.1(c)
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 3.1.6
Americas (3)

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

Security Awareness & Training (SAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with SAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Security awareness and training-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Security awareness and training methods are often generic, without organization-specific content.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Security Awareness & Training-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Security Awareness & Training may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Users are educated on their responsibilities to protect TAASD assigned to them or under their supervision. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel create/govern security and awareness training to meet specific statutory, regulatory and/or contractual compliance obligations. ▪ Privileged users receive formal security and/or data privacy awareness training to ensure they understand their unique roles and responsibilities. ▪ The responsibility for training users and enforcing policies may be assigned to user's immediate supervisor(s)/manager(s), including the definition and enforcement of the user's specific role(s) and responsibilities.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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 SAT 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 SAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A security awareness & training team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain SAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of security awareness and training management (e.g., Computer Based Learning (CBL) solutions). ▪ 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 SAT 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 facilitate the implementation of security workforce development and awareness controls.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Security Awareness & Training (SAT) 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. SAT-02_A01 a cybersecurity / data privacy workforce development and improvement program is established.
  2. SAT-02_A02 the cybersecurity / data privacy education and awareness program is organization-wide.
  3. SAT-02_A03 the frequency at which to provide security literacy training to system users after initial training is defined.
  4. SAT-02_A04 events that require security literacy training for system users are defined.
  5. SAT-02_A05 security literacy training is provided to system users as part of initial training for new users.
  6. SAT-02_A06 security literacy training is provided to system users <A.03.02.01.ODP[01]: frequency> after initial training.
  7. SAT-02_A07 Security Awareness & Training (SAT) operations are conducted according to documented policies, standards, procedures and/or other organizational directives.
  8. SAT-02_A08 adequate resources (e.g., people, processes, technologies, data and/or facilities) are provided to support Security Awareness & Training (SAT) operations.
  9. SAT-02_A09 responsibility and authority for the performance of Security Awareness & Training (SAT)-related activities are assigned to designated personnel.
  10. SAT-02_A10 personnel performing Security Awareness & Training (SAT)-related activities have the skills and knowledge needed to perform their assigned duties.

Evidence Requirements

E-SAT-06 Training Materials

Documented evidence of security awareness training materials (e.g., curriculum, course work, presentations, etc.)

Education

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

Small

  • Third-party advisors (e.g., virtual CISO, Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP), etc.)

Medium

  • Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)

Large

  • Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)

Enterprise

  • Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)

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.