SEA-07.1: Technology Lifecycle Management
Mechanisms exist to manage the usable lifecycles of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Control Question: Does the organization manage the usable lifecycles of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS)?
General (35)
US (18)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | EXD:SG3.SP3 EXD:SG3.SP4 EXD:SG4.SP1 EXD:SG4.SP2 RTSE:SG2.SP2 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SA-3 |
| US DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap | 2.3.7 |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.UNL.RLMAN |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SA-3 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | SA-3 |
| US IRS 1075 | SA-3 |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | SA-3 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | SA-3 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SA-3 |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.5(55) |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex | 6.7.2(j) 6.7.2(k) 6.7.3 |
| EMEA Germany Banking Supervisory Requirements for IT (BAIT) | 8.3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-15-3 |
| EMEA Spain BOE-A-2022-7191 | 36 |
| EMEA Spain 311/2022 | 36 |
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | A3.a (point 5) |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Essential 8 | ML3-P2 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 | 1.3.1 2.2 2.2.5 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.16.02.A 03.16.02.B |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to manage the usable lifecycles of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Secure Engineering & Architecture (SEA) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:
- IT personnel use an informal process to design, build and maintain secure solutions.
- IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.
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, Applications and/or Services (TAAS), 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 Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) 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, 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 manage the usable lifecycles of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS).
Assessment Objectives
- SEA-07.1_A01 a technology refresh schedule is planned for the system throughout the system development life cycle.
- SEA-07.1_A02 a technology refresh schedule is implemented for the system throughout the system development life cycle.
- SEA-07.1_A03 system pre-production environments are protected commensurate with risk throughout the system development life cycle for the system, system component or system service.
Evidence Requirements
- E-AST-09 Computer Lifecycle Plan (CLP)
-
Documented evidence of a Computer Lifecycle Plan (CLP) that describes how the life of technology assets is managed.
Asset Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Defined Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) for critical assets
Small
- Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Defined Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) for critical assets
Medium
- Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Defined Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) for critical assets
Large
- Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Defined Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) for critical assets
Enterprise
- Computer Lifecycle Program (CLP)
- IT Asset Management (ITAM) program
- Defined Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) for critical assets