Skip to main content

THR-10: Predictive Cyber Analytics

THR 3 — Low Protect

Mechanisms exist to employ advanced automation and analytics capabilities to predict and identify risks to Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, THR-10 was Threat Analysis. That control is now THR-08.

Control Question: Does the organization employ advanced automation and analytics capabilities to predict and identify risks to Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD)?

General (2)
Framework Mapping Values
NIST 800-172 R3 03.11.03E
NIST 800-172A R3 DS-A.03.11.03E[01] A.03.11.03E.ODP[01] A.03.11.03E.ODP[02] DS-A.03.11.03E[02] A.03.11.03E.ODP[03]
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia CCM 2026 GOV-07

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 employ advanced automation and analytics capabilities to predict and identify risks to Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Threat Management (THR) 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

Threat Management (THR) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

Assessment Objectives

  1. THR-10_A01 advanced automation and analytics capabilities are implemented to predict and identify risks to Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Use free threat indicators from CISA and MS-ISAC

Small

  • Use free threat indicators from CISA and MS-ISAC
  • Basic anomaly detection via endpoint protection tools

Medium

  • SIEM with anomaly detection capabilities
  • User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) basic functionality

Large

  • SIEM/UEBA platform with predictive analytics
  • Machine learning-based anomaly detection
  • Threat hunting based on behavioral analytics

Enterprise

  • Enterprise SIEM/SOAR with advanced predictive analytics
  • AI/ML-based threat detection (e.g., Darktrace, Vectra AI, Microsoft Sentinel ML)
  • Dedicated threat analytics team
  • Predictive analytics integrated with SOC operations

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.