Skip to main content

SEA-02: Alignment With Enterprise Architecture

SEA 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data protection principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations.

Control Question: Does the organization develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data protection principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations?

General (40)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC3.1 CC4.1 CC5.1 CC6.1-POF2
CIS CSC 8.1 12.2 16.10
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 12.2 16.10
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 12.2 16.10
COBIT 2019 APO02.01 APO03.01 APO03.02 APO03.03 APO03.04 APO03.05 APO04.02 APO04.03 APO04.04 APO04.05 APO04.06
COSO 2017 Principle 6 Principle 10 Principle 16 Principle 18
CSA IoT SCF 2 CLS-05 GVN-01 GVN-02 SWS-04
GovRAMP Low+ PL-08
GovRAMP Moderate PL-08
GovRAMP High PL-08
ISO 27002 2022 5.8 8.26
ISO 27017 2015 CLD.13.1.4 14.1.1
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 GV.PO-P2
NIST 800-37 R2 P-16
NIST 800-39 2.7 2.8
NIST 800-53 R4 PL-8 PM-7
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PL-8
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PL-8
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PL-8 PM-7
NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) PL-8
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PL-8
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PL-8
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) PM-7
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PL-8
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PL-8
NIST 800-160 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6
NIST 800-161 R1 PL-8 PM-7
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 PM-7
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 PL-8 PM-7
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 PL-8
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) NFO-PL-8
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.01.12.a 03.01.16.a 03.01.18.a 03.13.01.c 03.16.01
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.IR PR.IR-01 PR.IR-03
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 1.2
SWIFT CSF 2023 1.3
TISAX ISA 6 5.3.1
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) SEA-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational SEA-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure SEA-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats SEA-02
US (37)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 ARCHITECTURE-1.A.MIL1 ARCHITECTURE-1.B.MIL2 ARCHITECTURE-1.H.MIL3
US CERT RMM 1.2 CTRL:SG2.SP1 EC:SG3.SP1 EC:SG3.SP2 EF:SG1.SP2 EF:SG1.SP3 EF:SG2.SP1 EXD:SG1.SP1 KIM:SG3.SP1 PM:SG2.SP1 PM:SG2.SP2 RRD:SG2.SP2 RRM:SG1.SP1 RRM:SG1.SP5 RTSE:SG1.SP3 RTSE:SG2.SP2 SC:SG1.SP2 TM:SG1.SP2 TM:SG2.SP2 TM:SG3.SP1 TM:SG3.SP2
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PL-8 PM-7
US DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture 2.0 3.0
US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 3.UNI.RESIL
US FDA 21 CFR Part 11 11.30 11.50 11.70 11.100 11.100(a) 11.100(b)
US FedRAMP R4 SC-1 SA-8 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R4 (low) SC-1 SI-1
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) SC-1 SA-8 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R4 (high) SC-1 SA-8 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) SC-1 SI-1
US FedRAMP R5 (source) SA-8 SC-1 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) SA-8 SC-1 SI-1
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) SA-8 SC-1 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) SA-8 SC-1 SC-7(18) SI-1
US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) SA-8 SC-1 SI-1
US FTC Act §45(a) §45b(d)(1)
US GLBA CFR 314 2023 (source) 314.4(c)
US HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 (source) 164.306(b)(1) 164.306(b)(2)(ii)
US HIPAA Security Rule / NIST SP 800-66 R2 (source) 164.306(b)(1) 164.306(b)(2)(ii)
US HIPAA HICP Small Practice 1.S.A 2.S.A 3.S.A 5.S.A 5.S.B 5.S.C 6.S.A 6.S.C 9.S.A
US HIPAA HICP Medium Practice 1.M.A 5.M.B 9.M.B
US HIPAA HICP Large Practice 1.M.A 5.M.B 9.M.B 1.L.A
US IRS 1075 PT-1 SA-8 SC-1 SC-7(18) SI-1
US NISPOM 2020 8-101 8-302 8-311
US NNPI (unclass) 16.2
US SSA EIESR 8.0 5.6
US - CA SB327 1798.91.04(a) 1798.91.04(a)(1) 1798.91.04(a)(2) 1798.91.04(a)(3) 1798.91.04(b) 1798.91.04(b)(1) 1798.91.04(b)(2)
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(5)(B)
US - CO Colorado Privacy Act 6-1-1305(4) 6-1-1308(5)
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.2(b)(2)
US - NY SHIELD Act S5575B 4(2)(b)(ii)(B)(1) 4(2)(b)(ii)(B)(2) 4(2)(b)(ii)(B)(3) 4(2)(b)(ii)(B)(4)
US - TX BC521 521.052
US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 SA-8 SC-1 SI-1
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 SC-1 SI-1
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 SA-8 SC-1 SC-7(18) SI-1
US - VT Act 171 of 2018 2447(a) 2447(a)(1) 2447(a)(1)(A) 2447(a)(1)(B) 2447(a)(1)(C) 2447(a)(1)(D) 2447(a)(2)
EMEA (29)
APAC (16)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia Privacy Act APP Part 8 APP Part 11
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1739 ISM-1743
APAC Australia IoT Code of Practice Principle 4 Principle 5 Principle 6 Principle 7
APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 15 18
APAC China DNSIP 4
APAC Hong Kong Principle 4 Sec 33
APAC India ITR 7 8
APAC Japan APPI 20
APAC Japan ISMAP 14.1.2 14.2.5
APAC Malaysia 9
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 1.2.13.C.01 1.2.13.C.02
APAC Philippines 25 29
APAC Singapore 24 26
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 11.2.8
APAC South Korea 3 29
APAC Taiwan 21
Americas (13)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Argentina PPL 9 12
Americas Bahamas 6 12
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 4
Americas Brazil LGPD 6.7 46 37 49
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2 2.1 2.1.2
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.01.12.A 03.01.16.A 03.01.18.A 03.13.01.C 03.16.01
Americas Canada PIPEDA Principle 7
Americas Chile 7
Americas Colombia 4 26
Americas Costa Rica 10 14
Americas Mexico 19 36 37
Americas Peru 9 11 15 16 17
Americas Uruguay 5 10

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data protection principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data protection principles that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Architecture/engineering management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, exists to govern changes to systems, applications and services, ensuring their stability, reliability and predictability.
  • Administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for architecture/engineering management.
  • IT personnel implement secure engineering practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets, data and network(s).
  • Technologies are configured to protect data with the strength and integrity commensurate with the classification or sensitivity of the information and mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for hardening (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides), including cryptographic protections for sensitive/regulated data.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • IT/cybersecurity architects, or a similar function, enable the implementation a “layered defense” network architecture that enables a resilient defense-in-depth approach through the use of industry-recognized cybersecurity and data privacy practices in the specification, design, development, implementation and modification of systems and services (e.g., DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks or OEM security guides).
  • IT/cybersecurity engineers, or a similar function, operationalize enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data privacy principles, including resiliency expectations, that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations.
  • A Validated Architecture Design Review (VADR), or similar process, is used to evaluate design criteria for secure practices and conformance with requirements for applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual controls to determine if the system/application/service is designed, built and operated in a secure and resilient manner.
  • A Change Advisory Board (CAB), or similar function, governs changes to systems, applications and services to ensure their stability, reliability and predictability.
  • A formal Change Management (CM) program helps to ensure that no unauthorized changes are made, all changes are documented, services are not disrupted and resources are used efficiently.
  • An Identity & Access Management (IAM) function, or similar function, enables the implementation of identification and access management controls for “least privileges” practices, allowing for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts.
  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes assets according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and applies the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • 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.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to develop an enterprise architecture, aligned with industry-recognized leading practices, with consideration for cybersecurity and data privacy principles, including resiliency expectations, that addresses risk to organizational operations, assets, individuals and other organizations.

Assessment Objectives

  1. SEA-02_A01 an enterprise architecture is developed with consideration for cybersecurity / data privacy.
  2. SEA-02_A02 an enterprise architecture is maintained with consideration for cybersecurity / data privacy.
  3. SEA-02_A03 an enterprise architecture is developed with consideration for the resulting risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals and other organizations.
  4. SEA-02_A04 an enterprise architecture is maintained with consideration for the resulting risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals and other organizations.
  5. SEA-02_A05 frequency for review / update to reflect changes in the enterprise architecture.
  6. SEA-02_A06 a cybersecurity / data privacy architecture for the system describes the requirements and approach to be taken for protecting the confidentiality, integrity and availability of organizational information.
  7. SEA-02_A07 a cybersecurity / data privacy architecture for the system describes how the architecture is integrated into and supports the enterprise architecture.
  8. SEA-02_A08 a cybersecurity / data privacy architecture for the system describes any assumptions about and dependencies on external systems and services.
  9. SEA-02_A09 changes in the enterprise architecture are reviewed / updated per an organization-defined frequency to reflect changes in the enterprise architecture.
  10. SEA-02_A10 planned architecture changes are reflected in the cybersecurity / data privacy plan.
  11. SEA-02_A11 planned architecture changes are reflected in the Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
  12. SEA-02_A12 planned architecture changes are reflected in criticality analysis.
  13. SEA-02_A13 planned architecture changes are reflected in organizational procedures.
  14. SEA-02_A14 planned architecture changes are reflected in procurements and acquisitions.

Evidence Requirements

E-TDA-04 Design and Development Plan (DDP)

Documented evidence of an engineering method to control the design process and govern the lifecycle of the product/service.

Technology Design & Acquisition
E-TDA-09 Security Architecture View

Documented evidence that identifies security-relevant system elements and their interfaces: • Define security context, domains, boundaries, and external interfaces of the system; • Align the architecture with (a) the system security objectives and requirements, (b) security design characteristics; and • Establish traceability of architecture elements to user and system security requirements.

Technology Design & Acquisition

Technology Recommendations

Medium

  • Enterprise architecture committee

Large

  • Enterprise architecture committee

Enterprise

  • Enterprise architecture committee

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.