Skip to main content

TPM-03.2: Limit Potential Harm

TPM 9 — Critical Identify

Mechanisms exist to utilize security safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target the organization's supply chain.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize security safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target its supply chain?

General (20)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC9.1 P6.4-POF2 P6.5-POF1 P6.5-POF2 P6.6-POF1
CIS CSC 8.1 15.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 15.4
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 15.4
CSA CCM 4 STA-13
CSA IoT SCF 2 RSM-03
ISO/SAE 21434 2021 RQ-07-01
ISO 27002 2022 5.19 5.20
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 OR-3.4
NIST 800-53 R4 SA-12(5)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) SR-3(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) SR-3(2)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.17.03.a 03.17.03.b
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) GV.SC-06 GV.SC-07
UN R155 7.2.2.5
UN ECE WP.29 7.2.2.5
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) TPM-03.2
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational TPM-03.2
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure TPM-03.2
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats TPM-03.2
US (6)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 THIRD-PARTIES-1.E.MIL2
US CISA CPG 2022 1.I
US FCA CRM 609.930(c)(5)(i)
US GLBA CFR 314 2023 (source) 314.4(f)(1)
US HIPAA HICP Large Practice 9.L.C
US IRS 1075 SR-3(2)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 21.3
EMEA Germany C5 2020 SSO-02
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 11.3 16.2
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 4-1-1-1 4-1-1-2
APAC (5)
Americas (2)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada CSAG 2.3 4.25
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.17.03.A 03.17.03.B

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to utilize security safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target its supply chain.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to utilize security safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target its supply chain.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 Require TSP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. o Contain "break clauses" in all TSP contracts to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on the TSP's cybersecurity and/ or data privacy practices deficiency(ies).

  • Third-party management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for third-party management.
  • A procurement function maintains a list of all active Third-Party Service Providers (TSP), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment.
  • A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) is documented for every TSP that directly or indirectly affects sensitive/regulated data.
  • Procurement contracts:
Level 3 — Well Defined

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data with regards to third-party management. o Operates the Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program to identify and mitigate supply chain-related risks and threats. o Evaluates risks associated with weaknesses or deficiencies in supply chain elements identified during first and/ or third-party reviews. o Enables the implementation of third-party management controls. o Ensures the Information Assurance Program (IAP) evaluates applicable cybersecurity and data protection controls as part of “business as usual” pre-production testing. o Maintains a list of all active Third-Party Service Providers (TSP), including pertinent contract information that will assist in a risk assessment. o Requires TSP to follow secure engineering practices as part of a broader Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) initiative. o Includes "break clauses" in all TSP contracts to enable penalty-free, early termination of a contract for cause, based on the TSP's cybersecurity and/ or data privacy practices deficiency(ies). o Controls changes to services by suppliers, taking into account the criticality of business information, systems and processes that are in scope by the third-party. o Requires a risk assessment prior to the acquisition or outsourcing of technology-related services. o Monitors, regularly reviews and audits supplier service delivery for compliance with established contract agreements. o Uses tailored acquisition strategies, contract tools and procurement methods for the purchase of unique systems, system components or services.

  • Procurement contracts and layered defenses provide safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target the organization's supply chain.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function;
  • A procurement team, or similar function:
  • A Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) is documented for every TSP that directly or indirectly affects sensitive/regulated data.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 safeguards to limit harm from potential adversaries who identify and target its supply chain.

Assessment Objectives

  1. TPM-03.2_A01 controls to limit harm from potential supply chain adversaries are defined.
  2. TPM-03.2_A02 controls are employed to limit harm from potential adversaries identifying and targeting the organizational supply chain.

Evidence Requirements

E-TPM-01 Third-Party Contracts

Documented evidence of third-party contractual obligations for cybersecurity & data privacy protections.

Third-Party Management
E-TPM-02 Third-Party Criticality Assessment

Documented evidence of third-party criticality assessment that evaluates the critical nature of each third-party the organization works with.

Third-Party Management
E-TPM-03 Third-Party Service Reviews

Documented evidence of a formal, annual stakeholder review of third-party services for each Third-Party Service Provider (TSP).

Third-Party Management
E-TPM-05 Break Clauses

Documented evidence of "break clauses" in third-party contracts.

Third-Party Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Liability clause in contracts

Small

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Liability clause in contracts

Medium

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Liability clause in contracts

Large

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Liability clause in contracts

Enterprise

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Liability clause in contracts

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.