THR-13: Threat Hunting
Mechanisms exist to perform cyber threat hunting that uses Indicators of Compromise (IoC) to detect, track and disrupt threats that evade existing security controls.
Renumbered: Formerly THR-07 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization perform cyber threat hunting that uses Indicators of Compromise (IoC) to detect, track and disrupt threats that evade existing security controls?
General (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CR CMM 2026 | CR2.2.4 |
| MITRE ATT&CK 16 | T1068 T1190 T1195 T1195.001 T1195.002 T1210 T1211 T1212 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | RA-10 SC-48 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | RA-10 SC-48 |
| NIST 800-160 Vol2 R1 | RA-10 SC-48 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | RA-10 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | RA-10 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | RA-10 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | RA-10 |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.11.02E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | DS-A.03.11.02E.a.01[02] DS-A.03.11.02E.a.02[01] DS-A.03.11.02E.a.02[02] DS-A.03.11.02E.b |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | ID.RA-03 DE |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 3 | RA.L3-3.11.1E RA.L3-3.11.2E SI.L3-3.14.6E |
EMEA (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA UK CAF 4.0 | C2 C2.a (point 1) C2.a (point 2) C2.a (point 3) C2.a (point 4) C2.a (point 5) C2.a (point 6) C2.a (point 7) C2.a (point 8) |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1921 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | DE.DP.S5 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A5-C2(d) A5-D6 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 A.6.1 A.6.2 A.6.3 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 3.0 |
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 perform cyber threat hunting that uses Indicators of Compromise (IoC) to detect, track and disrupt threats that evade existing security controls.
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-13_A01 a cyber threat capability is established and maintained to search for Indicators of Compromise (IOC) in organizational systems.
- THR-13_A02 a cyber threat capability is established and maintained to detect, track and disrupt threats that evade existing controls.
- THR-13_A03 cyber threat hunting activities are conducted according to an organization-defined frequency and/or organization-defined event to detect, track and disrupt threats that evade existing controls.
- THR-13_A04 sensors and monitoring capabilities to be relocated are defined.
- THR-13_A05 locations to where sensors and monitoring capabilities are to be relocated are defined.
- THR-13_A06 conditions or circumstances for relocating sensors and monitoring capabilities are defined.
- THR-13_A07 sensors and monitoring capabilities are relocated to locations under organization-defined conditions or circumstances.
- THR-13_A08 Indicators of Compromise (IOC) are defined.
- THR-13_A09 organizational systems to search for Indicators of Compromise (IOC) are defined.
- THR-13_A10 the frequency with which to conduct cyber threat hunting activities is defined.
- THR-13_A11 the event triggering cyber threat hunting activities is defined.
Evidence Requirements
- E-THR-05 Threat Mitigation
-
Documented evidence of steps taken to mitigate identified threats.
Threat Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Subscribe to free threat intelligence feeds (e.g., CISA alerts)
Small
- CISA alerts subscription
- Basic threat awareness program
Medium
- Threat hunting capability
Large
- Threat hunting capability
Enterprise
- Threat hunting capability