Skip to main content

THR-05: Insider Threat Awareness

THR 8 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat?

General (26)
Framework Mapping Values
GovRAMP Low+ AT-02(02)
GovRAMP Moderate AT-02(02)
GovRAMP High AT-02(02)
NIST 800-53 R4 AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) AT-2(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay AT-2(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay AT-2(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay AT-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 AT-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline AT-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 Flow Down AT-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 AT-2(2)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.2.3
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.2.3[a] 3.2.3[b]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.02.01.a.03
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.02.01.a.03[01] A.03.02.01.a.03[02]
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) ID.RA-03
SPARTA CM0052
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational THR-05
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure THR-05
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats THR-05
US (14)
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1625 ISM-1626
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.02.01.A.03

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Threat Management (THR) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Threat management is decentralized.
  • IT personnel subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Threat Management (THR) 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: o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for threat management. o Subscribe to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats.

  • Threat management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • The HR department, in conjunction with cybersecurity personnel, helps ensure secure practices are implemented in personnel management operations to help manage threats.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel:
Level 3 — Well Defined

Threat Management (THR) 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: o Subscribes to threat feeds to maintain situational awareness of emerging threats. o Develops Indicators of Exposure (IOE) to better understand potential attack vectors that attackers could use to attack the organization. o Implements a Threat Awareness Program (TAP) that includes a cross-organization information-sharing capability. o Implements a “threat hunting” capability to actively identify internal threats.

  • A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function:
  • An Integrated Security Incident Response Team (ISIRT), or similar function, exists to form an on-demand, integrated team of cybersecurity, IT, data privacy and business function representatives that can execute coordinated incident response operations, including a cross-discipline incident handling capability.
  • Cybersecurity personnel enable security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Threat Management (THR) 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 utilize security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.

Assessment Objectives

  1. THR-05_A01 potential indicators associated with insider threats are identified.
  2. THR-05_A02 security literacy training is provided to system users on recognizing indicators of insider threat.
  3. THR-05_A03 security literacy training is provided to system users on reporting indicators of insider threat.
  4. THR-05_A04 security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat is provided to managers and employees.

Evidence Requirements

E-SAT-04 Recurring User Training

Documented evidence of recurring (e.g., annual) user training for cybersecurity and/or data privacy topics.

Education
E-SAT-05 Role-Based Training

Documented evidence of specialized user training for privileged users, executives, individuals who handle sensitive/regulated data, etc.

Education
E-THR-04 Threat Intelligence Program (TIP)

Documented evidence of a formal capability that intakes and analysis threat information to determine specific threat to the organization and necessary actions to mitigate the threat(s).

Threat Management

Technology Recommendations

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.