TPM-04: Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)
Mechanisms exist to: (1) Evaluate security risks and threats associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) supply chains; and (2) Take appropriate remediation actions to minimize the organization's exposure to those risks and threats, as necessary.
Renumbered: Formerly TPM-03 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, TPM-04 was Third-Party Services. That control is now TPM-12.
Control Question: Does the organization: (1) Evaluate security risks and threats associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) supply chains; and (2) Take appropriate remediation actions to minimize its exposure to those risks and threats, as necessary?
General (33)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC1.1-POF5 CC3.2-POF7 CC9.1 CC9.2-POF1 CC9.2-POF2 CC9.2-POF3 CC9.2-POF4 CC9.2-POF7 CC9.2-POF8 CC9.2-POF9 CC9.2-POF10 CC9.2-POF12 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO10.04 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | IAM-11 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | POL-02 |
| IEC 62443-2-1 2024 | ORG 2.1 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.5.3.8 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.19 5.21 5.22 8.30 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 15.1.3 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.19 5.21 5.22 8.30 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | A.10 A.10.2 A.10.3 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SA-12 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | SA-09(03) SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | SA-09(03) SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | SA-9(3) SR-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | SR-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | SA-9(3) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | SA-9(3) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | SA-9(3) SR-2 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.11.01.a 03.17.01.a 03.17.03.a 03.17.03.b |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.11.01.a A.03.17.01.a[01] A.03.17.03.a[01] A.03.17.03.b |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.SC GV.SC-06 GV.SC-07 |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A02:2025 A03:2025 A05:2025 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 10.1 |
| SPARTA 4.0 | CM0026 CM0027 |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 2.8 |
| UN R155 | 7.2.2.5 |
| UN ECE WP.29 | 7.2.2.5 |
US (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 1.H 1.I |
| USA Federal DoW BaTB OT 2026 | 9 |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | EXD:SG2 EXD:SG2.SP1 EXD:SG2.SP2 EXD:SG3 EXD:SG3.SP1 EXD:SG3.SP2 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SR-2 SR-2(1) |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.14 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SR-02 SR-02(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | SR-02 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-9(CE-3) SR-2 SR-2(CE-1) |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(f)(1) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-013-2 1.2.5 CIP-013-2 1.2.6 |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(iii) |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(15) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | SR-02 |
EMEA (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | SSO-02.01B.3 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.ext.1 op.ext.2 op.ext.3 |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 30.3(f) |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 11.2(k)(iv) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.7.3.86 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 2022 | Article 21.2(d) Article 21.3 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 5.1.6 |
| EMEA UK CAP 1850 2020 | A4 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 1400 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 1400 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 1400 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 1400 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 31 38.c 107 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 4-1-1-1 4-1-1-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 4-1-3-1 |
APAC (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia CCM 2026 | GOV-11 PRO-16 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0731 ISM-1452 ISM-1632 ISM-1789 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 15 |
| APAC India RBI PPI 2025 | 7.11.a |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.OC.S3 GV.SC.S1 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.12(b) 10.15 10.49(b) A8-3 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 12.7.14.C.01 12.7.14.C.02 12.7.14.C.03 12.7.15.C.01 12.7.15.C.02 12.7.16.C.01 12.7.16.C.02 12.7.16.C.03 12.7.17.C.01 12.7.18.C.01 12.7.18.C.02 12.7.19.C.01 12.7.19.C.02 12.7.20.C.01 12.7.20.C.02 12.7.20.C.03 12.7.20.C.04 12.7.20.C.05 12.7.21.C.01 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.11.01.A 03.17.01.A 03.17.03.A 03.17.03.B |
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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Third-party management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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 TPM 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 TPM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A procurement team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain TPM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of third-party management operations (e.g., TPRM risk management solution and vendor management 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 TPM 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: (1) Evaluate security risks and threats associated with Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) supply chains; and (2) Take appropriate remediation actions to minimize the organization's exposure to those risks and threats, as necessary.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
Third-Party Management (TPM) 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
- TPM-04_A01 the personnel, roles and responsibilities of the supply chain risk management team are defined.
- TPM-04_A02 supply chain risk management activities are defined.
- TPM-04_A03 a supply chain risk management team consisting of personnel, roles and responsibilities is established to lead and support supply chain risk management activities.
- TPM-04_A04 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the research and development of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A05 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the design of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A06 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the manufacturing of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A07 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the acquisition of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A08 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the delivery of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A09 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the integration of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A10 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the operation and maintenance of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A11 the supply chain risk management plan addresses risks associated with the disposal of systems, system components or system services.
- TPM-04_A12 systems, system components or system services for which a supply chain risk management plan is developed are defined.
- TPM-04_A13 the frequency at which to review / update the supply chain risk management plan is defined.
- TPM-04_A14 a plan for managing supply chain risks is developed.
- TPM-04_A15 the supply chain risk management plan is reviewed / updated frequently or as required to address threat, organizational or environmental changes.
- TPM-04_A16 the supply chain risk management plan is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
- TPM-04_A17 the supply chain risk management plan is protected from unauthorized modification.
Evidence Requirements
- E-RSK-02 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan
-
Documented evidence of a Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan. This is program-level documentation in the form of a playbook, concept of operations or a similar format provides guidance on organizational practices that support existing policies and standards.
Risk Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Medium
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Large
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Enterprise
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)