TPM-17: Managing Changes To Third-Party Services
Mechanisms exist to control changes to services by suppliers, taking into account the criticality of business Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) that are in scope by the third-party.
Renumbered: Formerly TPM-10 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization control changes to services by suppliers, taking into account the criticality of business Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) that are in scope by the third-party?
General (33)
US (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SA-4 |
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 1.I |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | SA-4 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | SA-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | SA-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | SA-04 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | SA-04 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | SA-4 |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(15) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | SA-04 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | SA-04 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | SA-04 |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.ext.2 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 2022 | Article 21.3 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 5.1.7(d) |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 14.b 40.d.ii 80.e 80.f 101.c 137.a 137.b 142.c 142.d |
APAC (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-1794 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.SC.S4 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 15.2.1.14 15.2.1.15 15.2.2 15.2.2.1 15.2.2.2 15.2.2.3 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 10.12(a) A10-B4(a) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.16.01 03.17.02 |
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 control changes to services by suppliers, taking into account the criticality of business TAASD that are in scope by the third-party.
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
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
- TPM-17_A01 affected third-parties are identified through change control practices.
- TPM-17_A02 provided services are assessed for impact from proposed changes.
- TPM-17_A03 recurring reviews are performed of third-party provided services against existing contract requirements.
- TPM-17_A04 discrepancies in services provided and/or geolocation of provided services are evaluated for impact to the organization's operations.
Evidence Requirements
- E-TPM-03 Third-Party Service Reviews
-
Documented evidence of a formal, annual stakeholder review of third-party services for each External Service Provider (ESP).
Third-Party Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
Small
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
Medium
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
Large
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls
Enterprise
- Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) program
- Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
- Third-party contract requirements for cybersecurity controls