Skip to main content

TPM-06: Third-Party Personnel Security

TPM 9 — Critical Identify

Mechanisms exist to control personnel security requirements including security roles and responsibilities for third-party providers.

Control Question: Does the organization control personnel security requirements including security roles and responsibilities for third-party providers?

General (16)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC1.1-POF5 CC9.1
COBIT 2019 APO10.03
CSA CCM 4 STA-04
CSA IoT SCF 2 POL-02
ISO 27002 2022 5.2 5.19 8.30
ISO 27017 2015 6.1.1
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 OR-3.4
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 ID.IM-P2 GV.PO-P4 GV.AT-P4
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) GV.SC-06 ID.AM
UL 2900-1 2017 12.1
UN R155 7.2.2.5
UN ECE WP.29 7.2.2.5
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) TPM-06
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational TPM-06
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure TPM-06
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats TPM-06
US (8)
Framework Mapping Values
US CERT RMM 1.2 OPD:SG1.SP6
US FCA CRM 609.930(c)(4)
US FFIEC D1.G.SP.B.7 D4.RM.Co.B.2 D4.RM.Co.B.5
US HIPAA HICP Large Practice 9.L.C
US IRS 1075 1.9.3
US SSA EIESR 8.0 5.11
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(15)
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.10(b)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 21.3
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 10.2.1 5.1.4(c)
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 11.1 11.3 18.10 19.5
APAC (4)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1569
APAC China Privacy Law 52
APAC India SEBI CSCRF PR.AT.S3
APAC Japan ISMAP 6.1.1.13.PB 6.1.3.13.PB
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada CSAG 2.3

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to control personnel security requirements including security roles and responsibilities for third-party providers.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Third-Party Management (TPM) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Third-party management is decentralized.
  • IT personnel use an informal process to govern third-party service providers.
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 control personnel security requirements including security roles and responsibilities for third-party providers.

Assessment Objectives

  1. TPM-06_A01 roles and responsibilities for third-party provider personnel are documented.

Evidence Requirements

E-TPM-01 Third-Party Contracts

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

Third-Party Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

Small

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

Medium

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

Large

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

Enterprise

  • Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program

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.