TDA-12.1: Error Handling
Mechanisms exist to handle error conditions by: (1) Identifying potentially security-relevant error conditions; (2) Generating error messages that provide information necessary for corrective actions without revealing sensitive or potentially harmful information in error logs and administrative messages that could be exploited; and (3) Revealing error messages only to authorized personnel.
Renumbered: Formerly TDA-19 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization handle error conditions by: (1) Identifying potentially security-relevant error conditions; (2) Generating error messages that provide information necessary for corrective actions without revealing sensitive or potentially harmful information in error logs and administrative messages that could be exploited; and (3) Revealing error messages only to authorized personnel?
General (17)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| GovRAMP | SI-11 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | SI-11 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SI-11 |
| GovRAMP High | SI-11 |
| IEC 62443-3-3 2013 | SR 3.7 |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | CR 3.7 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-8.0 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SI-11 |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.14.13E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.14.13E.a DS-A.03.14.13E.b |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A08:2025 A10:2025 |
US (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SI-11 SI-11.a SI-11.b |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SI-11 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SI-11 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SI-11 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SI-11 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | SI-11 |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 8.2(c) Article 8.2(c)(i) |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-61 |
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
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Technology development and acquisition-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Technology development and acquisition management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Secure development practices mostly conform to industry-recognized standards for secure engineering of Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) (e.g., OWASP, NIST SP 800-218 and NIST SP 800-160). ▪ An application development team, or similar function, uses a structured process to design, build and maintain secure configurations for test, development, staging and production environments.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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 TDA 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 TDA domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A software development team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TDA domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of technology development and acquisition management (e.g., project management software, software escrow solution and software testing tools). ▪ 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 TDA 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 handle error conditions by: (1) Identifying potentially security-relevant error conditions; (2) Generating error messages that provide information necessary for corrective actions without revealing sensitive or potentially harmful information in error logs and administrative messages that could be exploited; and (3) Revealing error messages only to authorized personnel.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Technology Development & Acquisition (TDA) 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
- TDA-12.1_A01 personnel or roles to whom error messages are to be revealed is/are defined.
- TDA-12.1_A02 error messages that provide the information necessary for corrective actions are generated without revealing information that could be exploited.
- TDA-12.1_A03 error messages are revealed only to organization-defined personnel or roles.
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Generic error messages to users; details logged server-side
Small
- Error handling standard (no stack traces or sensitive data in user-facing errors)
Medium
- Error handling requirements in SSDP
- Centralized logging of error details with restricted access
- DAST checks for information leakage
Large
- Enterprise error handling standard with automated testing
- Centralized error logging (SIEM) with role-based access
- Security-relevant error alerting
Enterprise
- Enterprise error handling and information leakage prevention standards
- Automated DAST/IAST verification
- SIEM correlation of security-relevant error conditions