THR-07: Material Threats
Mechanisms exist to define criteria necessary to designate a threat as a material threat.
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-16.2 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, THR-07 was Threat Hunting. That control is now THR-13.
Control Question: Does the organization define criteria necessary to designate a threat as a material threat?
General (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | RSM-01 |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.4.2 |
| NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) | 4.E(2)(b) |
US (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.105(b) 17 CFR 229.106(a) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(2) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.4(b) 500.4(b)(3) 500.4(b)(5) 500.9(b)(1) 500.9(b)(2) |
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 define criteria necessary to designate a threat as a material threat.
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-07_A01 organization-specific criteria to designate a threat as a "material threat," as it pertains to materiality considerations, are documented.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-17 Material Threats
-
Documented evidence of specific threats that are categorized as material threats.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Basic threat assessment against organizational context
Small
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Documented threat assessment with materiality criteria
- CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog reference
Medium
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Formal threat assessment with materiality thresholds
- MITRE ATT&CK framework threat modeling
- Threat intelligence integration (e.g., CISA advisories, sector ISAC feeds)
Large
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Formal material threat designation process with executive review
- Threat intelligence platform (e.g., Recorded Future, Anomali, MISP)
- MITRE ATT&CK-based threat modeling
Enterprise
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Enterprise material threat framework integrated with SEC disclosure process
- Dedicated threat intelligence platform (e.g., Recorded Future, Mandiant Threat Intelligence)
- Board-level material threat reporting cadence