Skip to main content

VPM-01.1: Attack Surface Scope

VPM 5 — Medium Protect

Mechanisms exist to define and manage the scope for its attack surface management activities.

Control Question: Does the organization define and manage the scope for its attack surface management activities?

General (27)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC2.2-POF9 CC3.2-POF7 CC3.2-POF9 CC3.4-POF6 CC9.2-POF13
COBIT 2019 MEA01.01
CSA CCM 4 TVM-07
CSA IoT SCF 2 CLS-06 VLN-02 SET-01 SET-04
ISO/SAE 21434 2021 RQ-09-01.a RQ-09-01.b RQ-09-01.c RQ-09-02
ISO 27002 2022 8.8
ISO 42001 2023 4.3
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 TS-4.0
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) SA-11(6) SA-11(7)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) SA-11(6) SA-11(7)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.11.02.a 03.14.01.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.11.02.a[01]
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.PS-02
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 11.3.1 11.3.1.1 11.3.1.2 11.3.1.3 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) 6.3.1 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 6.3.1 11.3.2
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 6.3.1 11.3.1 11.3.1.3 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 6.3.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 11.3.1 11.3.1.1 11.3.1.2 11.3.1.3 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 6.3.1 6.3.2 11.3.1 11.3.1.1 11.3.1.2 11.3.1.3 11.3.2 11.3.2.1
SWIFT CSF 2023 2.2 2.7 7.3A
TISAX ISA 6 5.2.5
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) VPM-01.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational VPM-01.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure VPM-01.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats VPM-01.1
US (9)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 THREAT-1.A.MIL1 THREAT-1.B.MIL1 THREAT-1.D.MIL1 THREAT-1.E.MIL2 THREAT-1.J.MIL3
US CERT RMM 1.2 VAR:SG1.SP1
US CISA CPG 2022 1.E 1.F
US DHS ZTCF CLO-02 EPM-02
US FCA CRM 609.930(c)(2)
US IRS 1075 SA-11(6)
US NNPI (unclass) 9.1 17.1
US - CA CCPA 2025 7123(c)(5)(D)
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.5(a)(1)
EMEA (5)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PSS-02
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 2-10-1-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-11-3-1 5-1-3-8
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 2-9-1-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 TPC-27 TPC-28 TPC-29
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.4.4
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 6.2.4.C.01
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 13.1.2
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.11.02.A 03.14.01.A

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to define and manage the scope for its attack surface management activities.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Attack Surface Management (ASM) is decentralized.
  • IT personnel apply software patches through an informal process.
  • Occasional vulnerability scanning is conducted on High Value Assets (HVAs).
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 Defines the scope of ASM activities. o Identify cybersecurity and data protection controls to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for ASM. o Apply software patches and other vulnerability remediation efforts.

  • Attack Surface Management (ASM) is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel:
  • Administrative processes and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Vulnerability & Patch Management (VPM) 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 Defines the scope of ASM activities. 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 ASM. o Provides oversight of ASM activities to centrally manage the flaw remediation process as part of the organization's overall Patch& Vulnerability & Patch Management Program (VPMP). o Manages the identification, tracking and remediation of vulnerabilities. o Utilizes a Security Incident Event monitor (SIEM), or similar automated tool, to monitor for unauthorized activities, accounts, connections, devices and software according to organization-specific Indicators of Compromise (IoC), including feeds from applications, hosts, network devices and vulnerability scanners.

  • An IT Asset Management (ITAM) function, or similar function, categorizes devices according to the data the asset stores, transmits and/ or processes and applies the appropriate technology controls to protect the asset and data.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, or similar function:
  • A Security Operations Center (SOC), or similar function:
  • Asset custodians install the latest stable version of security-related updates on all systems within the organization-defined time requirements.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to define and manage the scope for its attack surface management activities.

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 define and manage the scope for its attack surface management activities.

Assessment Objectives

  1. VPM-01.1_A01 the breadth of testing and evaluation of required controls is defined.
  2. VPM-01.1_A02 the depth of testing and evaluation of required controls is defined.
  3. VPM-01.1_A03 system, applications and services are monitored for vulnerabilities per an organization-defined frequency.
  4. VPM-01.1_A04 systems and system components are included in the scope of the specified enhanced security requirements.
  5. VPM-01.1_A05 systems and system components that are not included in systems and system components are segregated in purpose-specific networks.
  6. VPM-01.1_A06 the developer of the system, system component or system service is required to perform attack surface reviews.
  7. VPM-01.1_A07 the developer of the system, system component, or system service is required to perform vulnerability analyses during the subsequent testing and evaluation of the system, component, or service that produces evidence that meets an organization-defined breadth.
  8. VPM-01.1_A08 the developer of the system, system component, or system service is required to verify that the scope of testing and evaluation provides complete coverage of the required controls at an organization-defined depth.
  9. VPM-01.1_A09 the system is monitored for vulnerabilities <A.03.11.02.ODP[01]: frequency>.

Evidence Requirements

E-VPM-06 Attack Surface Scope

Documented evidence of the organization defining its attack surface (e.g., may be in the form of graphical network diagrams or other forms of written documentation).

Vulnerability Management

Technology Recommendations

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.