THR-06: Threat Catalog
Mechanisms exist to develop and keep current a catalog of applicable internal and external threats to the organization, both natural and manmade.
Renumbered: Formerly THR-09 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, THR-06 was Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP). That control is now THR-12.
Control Question: Does the organization develop and keep current a catalog of applicable internal and external threats to the organization, both natural and manmade?
General (14)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.2-POF6 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2-POF11 CC3.2-POF6 CC9.1 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.5.4.1 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 2021 | RQ-15-01 |
| ISO 22301 2019 | 6.1.1 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | OR-1.2 |
| NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) | 4.C(2) 4.C(5) |
| NIST 800-39 | TASK 2-1 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.15.02.a.03 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-03 ID.RA-04 ID.RA-05 PR.IR-02 DE |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 7.4A |
| UL 2900-1 2017 | 12.1(b) |
| UN R155 | 7.2.2.2(b) |
| UN ECE WP.29 | 7.2.2.2(b) |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 3.A |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | RISK-2j |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 | RA.L3-3.11.5E |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.A.1 III.A |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.306(b)(2)(iv) |
| USA Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00 2008 | 17.03(2)(b) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.9(b)(1) |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 | 3.3 3.10 5.3 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | BCM-02.01B.4 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 13.2.1 |
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | A2.b C1.f |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-4-4 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 4.2.1 |
Americas (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | E.1.1-1 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.15.02.A.03 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.0 3.1.6 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 3.1.2 3.1.6 |
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
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with THR 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 THR domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Threat management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Threat management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Threat Management (THR) 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 THR 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 THR domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A threat management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain THR domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of threat management operations (e.g., threat intelligence solution and bug bounty solution). ▪ 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 THR 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 develop and keep current a catalog of applicable internal and external threats to the organization, both natural and manmade.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
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
- THR-06_A01 the organization maintains a threat catalog that documents applicable internal and external threats that are specific to the organization.
- THR-06_A02 the threat catalog documents both natural and manmade threats.
- THR-06_A03 on at least an annual basis, a threat assessment is performed to identify and assess applicable internal and external threats.
- THR-06_A04 the threat catalog is updated, based on a current threat assessment.
Evidence Requirements
- E-THR-06 Threat Catalog
-
Documented evidence of a threat catalog.
Threat Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Documented threat catalog
Small
- Documented threat catalog
Medium
- Documented threat catalog
Large
- Documented threat catalog
Enterprise
- Documented threat catalog