Digital Security Program (DSP) - Enterprise-Class, Hybrid Framework For Cybersecurity & Privacy
The DSP consists of thirty-two (32) policies that define a modern, digital security program (encompassing both cybersecurity and privacy). Nested within these policies are the control objectives, standards, guidelines, metrics & maturity target criteria that make your security program run. The DSP was developed to meet the need from growing organizations that either did not want to get locked into alignment with a single framework or had client/vendor requirements that spanned multiple frameworks. This led to the development of an enterprise-class solution that follows a "best in class" hybrid framework structure. Essentially, with the DSP you have the ability to align with multiple frameworks in an efficient and scalable manner.
Similar to our Written Information Security (WISP) products, the DSP provides the underlying cybersecurity standards that must be in place, as stipulated by statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. However, the DSP provides robust coverage for over 100 laws, regulations and other cybersecurity and privacy frameworks. The DSP is essentially a "superset" of ISO 27002, NIST CSF, NIST 800-171, NIST 800-53 and other frameworks for organizations that do not want to be locked into alignment with just one framework [scroll to the bottom of the page to see a list of everything the DSP currently maps to].
Cybersecurity & Privacy Policies, Standards, Controls & Metrics For A Digital Company - Hierarchical & Scalable!
ComplianceForge provides businesses with exactly what they need to protect themselves - professionally written cybersecurity policies, control objectives, standards, controls, procedures and guidelines at a very affordable cost. Similar documentation standards can be found in Fortune 500 company that have dedicated Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) staff. The Digital Security Program (DSP) is footnoted to provide authoritative references for the statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements that need to be addressed. Just as Human Resources publishes an “employee handbook” to let employees know what is expected for employees from a HR perspective, the DSP does this from a cybersecurity perspective.
Understanding "How To GRC" With The Digital Security Program (DSP) & Secure Controls Framework (SCF)
The structure of the Digital Security Program is scalable to make it is easy to add or remove policy sections, as your business needs change. The same concept applies to standards – you can simply add/remove content to meet your specific needs. The DSP addresses the “why?” and “what?” questions, since policies and standards form the foundation for your cybersecurity program. The following two documents shown below are well worth the time to make a pot of coffee and read through, since you will be able to understand both the structure of the documentation and how you can customize it for your specific needs.
The DSP is our recommended solution if you are currently using or plan to use a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) or Integrated Risk Management (IRM) solution (e.g., Ostendio's MyVCM, ZenGRC, LogicGate, Ignyte Assurance Platform, Archer, RSAM, MetricStream, ServiceNow, etc.). The DSP is ready to import into your GRC/IRM instance, since it comes in both Microsoft Word and Excel formats. This makes the import from Excel straightforward and that allows you to then do you any customization and collaboration directly from your GRC portal.
|Guide To Using The DSP & SCF||Understanding "How To GRC"|
Our products are one-time purchases with no software to install - you are buying Microsoft Office-based documentation templates that you can edit for your specific needs. If you can use Microsoft Office or OpenOffice, you can use the DSP! While the DSP does come in Microsoft Word like the WISP, the included Excel version of the DSP comes with the following content so it is easy to import into a GRC/IRM solution:
- Policy statements
- Policy intent
- Control objectives
- Controls (Secure Controls Framework)
- Security & Privacy Capability Maturity Model (SP-CMM) criteria
- Metrics - including suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) & Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)
- Indicators of Compromise (IoC)
- Indicators of Exposure (IoC)
- Target Audience Applicability
- Scoping - Basic or Enhanced Requirement
- Recommended roles / teams with responsibility for each standard.
32 Domains - One Policy For Each Domain
The DSP contains thirty-two (32) unique domains that cover a modern cybersecurity & privacy program. Each of these 32 policies are supported by standards that provide the granular requirements necessary to enforce these standards (examples of what these policy and standards look like are available in the next section below this chart). The 32 policies that make up the DSP are:
|DSP Policy||Identifier||DSP Policy Intent|
|1||Security & Privacy Governance||GOV||The GOV policy is focused on helping an organization specify the development of an organization’s security and privacy programs, including criteria to measure success, to ensure ongoing leadership engagement and risk management.|
|2||Asset Management||AST||The AST policy is focused on helping an organization ensure technology assets are properly managed throughout the lifecycle of the asset, from procurement through disposal, ensuring only authorized devices are allowed to access the organization’s network and to protect the organization’s data that is stored, processed or transmitted on its assets.|
|3||Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery||BCD||The BCD policy is focused on helping an organization establish processes that will help the organization recover from adverse situations with the minimal impact to operations, as well as provide the ability for e-discovery.|
|4||Capacity & Performance Planning||CAP||The CAP policy is focused on helping an organization prevent avoidable business interruptions caused by capacity and performance limitations by proactively planning for growth and forecasting, as well as requiring both technology and business leadership to maintain situational awareness of current and future performance.|
|5||Change Management||CHG||The CHG policy is focused on helping an organization ensure both technology and business leadership proactively manage change. This includes the assessment, authorization and monitoring of technical changes across the enterprise so as to not impact production systems uptime, as well as allow easier troubleshooting of issues.|
|6||Cloud Security||CLD||The CLD policy is focused on helping an organization govern the use of private and public cloud environments (e.g., IaaS, PaaS and SaaS) to holistically manage risks associated with third-party involvement and architectural decisions, as well as to ensure the portability of data to change cloud providers, if needed.|
|7||Compliance||CPL||The CPL policy is focused on helping an organization ensure controls are in place to be aware of and comply with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations, as well as internal company standards.|
|8||Configuration Management||CFG||The CFG policy is focused on helping an organization establish and maintain the integrity of systems. Without properly documented and implemented configuration management controls, security features can be inadvertently or deliberately omitted or rendered inoperable, allowing processing irregularities to occur or the execution of malicious code.|
|9||Continuous Monitoring||MON||The MON policy is focused on helping an organization establish and maintain ongoing situational awareness across the enterprise through the centralized collection and review of security-related event logs. Without comprehensive visibility into infrastructure, operating system, database, application and other logs, the organization will have “blind spots” in its situational awareness that could lead to system compromise, data exfiltration, or unavailability of needed computing resources.|
|10||Cryptographic Protections||CRY||The CRY policy is focused on helping an organization ensure the confidentiality of the organization’s data through implementing appropriate cryptographic technologies to protect systems and data.|
|11||Data Classification & Handling||DCH||The DCH policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that technology assets, both hardware and media, are properly classified and measures implemented to protect the organization’s data from unauthorized disclosure, regardless if it is being transmitted or stored. Applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements dictate the minimum safeguards that must be in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data.|
|12||Embedded Technology||EMB||The EMB policy is focused on helping an organization specify the development, proactive management and ongoing review of security embedded technologies, including hardening of the “stack” from the hardware, to firmware, software, transmission and service protocols used for Internet of Things (IoT) and Operational Technology (OT) devices.|
|13||Endpoint Security||END||The END policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that endpoint devices are appropriately protected from security threats to the device and its data. Applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance requirements dictate the minimum safeguards that must be in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety considerations.|
|14||Human Resources Security||HRS||The HRS policy is focused on helping an organization create a security and privacy-minded workforce and an environment that is conducive to innovation, considering issues such as culture, reward and collaboration.|
|15||Identification & Authentication||IAC||The IAC policy is focused on helping an organization implement the concept of “least privilege” through limiting access to the organization’s systems and data to authorized users only.|
|16||Incident Response||IRO||The IRO policy is focused on helping an organization establish and maintain a capability to guide the organization’s response when security or privacy-related incidents occur and to train users how to detect and report potential incidents.|
|17||Information Assurance||IAO||The IAO policy is focused on helping an organization ensure the adequately of security and controls are appropriate in both development and production environments.|
|18||Maintenance||MNT||The MNT policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that technology assets are properly maintained to ensure continued performance and effectiveness. Maintenance processes apply additional scrutiny to the security of end-of-life or unsupported assets.|
|19||Mobile Device Management||MDM||The MDM policy is focused on helping an organization govern risks associated with mobile devices, regardless if the device is owned by the organization, its users or trusted third-parties. Wherever possible, technologies are employed to centrally manage mobile device access and data storage practices.|
|20||Network Security||NET||The NET policy is focused on helping an organization ensure sufficient security and privacy controls are architected to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization’s network infrastructure, as well as to provide situational awareness of activity on the organization’s networks.|
|21||Physical & Environmental Security||PES||The PES policy is focused on helping an organization minimize physical access to the organization’s systems and data by addressing applicable physical security controls and ensuring that appropriate environmental controls are in place and continuously monitored to ensure equipment does not fail due to environmental threats.|
|22||Privacy||PRI||The PRI policy is focused on helping an organization align privacy engineering decisions with the organization’s overall privacy strategy and industry-recognized leading practices to secure Personal Information (PI) that implements the concept of privacy by design and by default.|
|23||Project & Resource Management||PRM||The PRM policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that security-related projects have both resource and project/program management support to ensure successful project execution.|
|24||Risk Management||RSK||The RSK policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that security and privacy-related risks are visible to and understood by the business unit(s) that own the assets and / or processes involved. The security and privacy teams only advise and educate on risk management matters, while it is the business units and other key stakeholders who ultimately own the risk.|
|25||Secure Engineering & Architecture||SEA||The SEA policy is focused on helping an organization align cybersecurity engineering and architecture decisions with the organization’s overall technology architectural strategy and industry-recognized leading practices to secure networked environments.|
|26||Security Operations||OPS||The OPS policy is focused on helping an organization ensure appropriate resources and a management structure exists to enable the service delivery of cybersecurity operations.|
|27||Security Awareness & Training||SAT||The SAT policy is focused on helping an organization develop a security and privacy-minded workforce through continuous education activities and practical exercises, in order to refine and improve on existing training.|
|28||Technology Development & Acquisition||TDA||The TDA policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that security and privacy principles are implemented into any products/solutions that are either developed internally or acquired to make sure that the concepts of “least privilege” and “least functionality” are incorporated.|
|29||Third-Party Management||TPM||The TPM policy is focused on helping an organization ensure that security and privacy risks associated with third-parties are minimized and enable measures to sustain operations should a third-party become defunct.|
|30||Threat Management||THR||The THR policy is focused on helping an organization establish a capability to proactively identify and manage technology-related threats to the security and privacy of the organization’s systems, data and business processes.|
|31||Vulnerability & Patch Management||VPM||The VPM policy is focused on helping an organization proactively manage the risks associated with technical vulnerability management that includes ensuring good patch and change management practices are utilized.|
|32||Web Security||WEB||The WEB policy is focused on helping an organization address the risks associated with Internet-accessible technologies by hardening devices, monitoring system file integrity, enabling auditing, and monitoring for malicious activities.|
Example Digital Security Program (DSP)
Our customers choose the Digital Security Program (DSP) because they need a scalable and comprehensive solution. The DSP is a hybrid, "best in class" approach to cybersecurity documentation that covers dozens of statutory, regulatory and contractual frameworks to create a comprehensive set of cybersecurity policies, standards, controls and metrics. The DSP has a 1-1 mapping relationship with the Secure Controls Framework (SCF) so it maps to over 100 leading practices! To understand the differences between the DSP and WISP, please visit here for more details.
|Watch Our Product Walkthrough Video||View Product Example|
Cost Savings Estimate For The Digital Security Program (DSP) - A Fraction Of The Time & Expense
When you look at the costs associated with either (1) hiring an external consultant to write cybersecurity documentation for you or (2) tasking your internal staff to write it, the cost comparisons paint a clear picture that buying from ComplianceForge is the logical option. Compared to hiring a consultant, you can save months of wait time and tens of thousands of dollars. Whereas, compared to writing your own documentation, you can potentially save hundreds of work hours and the associated cost of lost productivity. Purchasing the DSP from ComplianceForge offers these fundamental advantages when compared to the other options for obtaining quality cybersecurity documentation:
- For your internal staff to generate comparable documentation, it would take them an estimated 675 internal staff work hours, which equates to a cost of approximately $50,625 in staff-related expenses. This is about 6-12 months of development time where your staff would be diverted from other work.
- If you hire a consultant to generate this documentation, it would take them an estimated 375 consultant work hours, which equates to a cost of approximately $104,600. This is about 3-6 months of development time for a contractor to provide you with the deliverable.
- The DSP is approximately 7% of the cost for a consultant or 16% of the cost of your internal staff to generate equivalent documentation.
- We process most orders the same business day so you can potentially start working with the DSP the same day you place your order.
The process of writing cybersecurity documentation can take an internal team many months and it involves pulling your most senior and experienced cybersecurity experts away from operational duties to assist in the process, which is generally not the most efficient use of their time. In addition to the immense cost of hiring a cybersecurity consultant at $300/hr+ to write this documentation for you, the time to schedule a consultant, provide guidance and get the deliverable product can take months. Even when you bring in a consultant, this also requires involvement from your internal team for quality control and answering questions, so the impact is not limited to just the consultant's time being consumed.
Before You "Can Move The Needle" You Need A Needle - Metrics Are Included In The DSP!
The DSP can serve as a foundational element in your organization's cybersecurity program. It can stand alone or be paired with other specialized products we offer.
In addition to being a hybrid model that is made up of leading security frameworks, we also added in features that are not available in the Written Information Security Program (DSP), namely mapped controls and metrics. This equates to a potential time savings of hundreds of hours, based on how much work goes into not only creating controls and worthwhile metrics, but mapping those back into your organizations policies and standards.
One special aspect of the DSP is while it comes in Microsoft Word format, it also comes in Microsoft Excel so that it is easy to import into a GRC solution (e.g., Ostendio, ZenGRC, SimpleRisk, LogicGate, Ignyte Assurance Platform, Archer, RSAM, MetricStream, etc.)! This is an ideal solution for companies that either currently use a GRC solution or are exploring the use of one. The time savings can equate to a saving of tens of thousands of dollars in customizing "out of the box" documentation from these tools.
If you are interested in learning more, there is a product walk-through video and other helpful documentation, so keep reading or contact us so we can help answer your specific questions.
What Problem Does The DSP Solve?
- Lack of In House Security Experience - Writing security documentation is a skill that many good cybersecurity professionals simply are not proficient at and avoid the task at all cost. Tasking your security analysts and engineers to write comprehensive documentation means you are actively taking them away from protecting and defending your network, which is not a wise use of their time. The DSP is an efficient method to obtain comprehensive security policies, standards, controls and metrics for your organization!
- Compliance Requirements - Nearly every organization, regardless of industry, is required to have formally-documented security policies and standards. Requirements range from PCI DSS to HIPAA to NIST 800-171. The DSP is designed with compliance in mind, since it focuses on leading security frameworks to address reasonably-expected security requirements
- Audit Failures - Security documentation does not age gracefully like a fine wine. Outdated documentation leads to gaps that expose organizations to audit failures and system compromises. The DSP's standards provides mapping to leading security frameworks to show you exactly what is required to both stay secure and compliant.
- Vendor Requirements - It is very common for clients and partners to request evidence of a security program and this includes policies and standards. The DSP provides this evidence!
How Does the DSP Solve It?
- Clear Documentation - The DSP provides comprehensive documentation to prove that your security program exists. This equates to a time saving of hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in staff and consultant expenses!
- Time Savings - The DSP can provide your organization with a semi-customized solution that requires minimal resources to fine tune for your organization's specific needs.
- Alignment With Leading Practices - The DSP is written to support over one hundred laws, regulations and industry frameworks!
Far More Than Just Policies & Standards - The DSP Comes With Mapped Controls and Metrics
The DSP is a “best in class” hybrid that leverages numerous leading frameworks to create a comprehensive security program for your organization!
Digital Security - The Evolution of Security
If you are reading this, you are likely familiar with how “IT Security,” “Information Security,” and “Cybersecurity” are used interchangeably by most people. However, these terms do have meaning and as you “peel back the onion” on terminology you will see that “Digital Security” is the new leading terminology to describe the entire security ecosystem. This term has evolved to be all-encompassing, since it addresses technology, information, physical security, privacy and safety.
Safety Component - One Benefit of Thinking Digital
For years, the “CIA Triad” stood as the foundation for what a security program was designed to address – the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of both systems and data. That has now changed, since there are real-world safety considerations from Operational Technology (OT) and the Internet of Things (IoT). This has caused the evolution of the CIA Triad into the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and Safety (CIAS) model.
The DSP is designed around the CIAS model by adopting the best of leading security frameworks.
Steps To Using The DSP To Obtain CMM4 Maturity (Metrics-Driven)
It is a simple fact that technology and cybersecurity departments are not revenue-generating. These cost centers must continuously demonstrate value to justify current and future budgets. While many boards of directors and executive management provide initial security budget funding based on Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD), there is an eventual need to demonstrate a Security Return on Investment (SROI). Without this return on investment, budgets are hard to justify and capabilities suffer.
The most common ways for a security program to justify budget needs is through metrics reporting. The DSP can help you leverage the Systems Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SSE-CMM) with the Secure Control Framework's Security & Privacy Capability Maturity Model (SP-CMM). We avoided re-inventing the wheel and simply created an enterprise-class product that can help your organization rapidly advance its capability maturity to a CCM 4 levell or beyond!
Hierarchical Approach - Built To Scale & Evolve With Your Business
Our experience has proven that when it comes to Information Security policies, a standard is a standard for a reason. With that in mind, our Written Information Security Program (DSP) is based on industry-recognized best practices and Information Security standards so that you can meet your legal requirements. Unlike some competitor sites that offer “Bronze, Silver or Gold” packages that may leave you critically exposed, we offer a comprehensive Information Security solution to meet your specific compliance requirements. Why is this? It is simple - in the real world, compliance is penalty-centric. Courts have established a track record of punishing businesses for failing to perform “reasonably expected” steps to meet compliance with known standards.
The Written Information Security Program (DSP) follows a hierarchical approach to how the structure is designed so that standards map to control objectives and control objectives map to policies. This allows for the standards to be logically grouped to support the policies.
Policies are “high level” statements of management’s intent and are intended to guide decisions to achieve rational outcomes. Policies are not meant to be prescriptive, but provide an overall direction for the organization.
Control Objectives support policy by identifying applicable requirements that the organization needs to address. These applicable requirements can be best practices, laws or other legal obligations.
Standards establish formal requirements in regards to processes, actions and configurations. Standards are entirely focused on providing narrowly-focused, prescriptive requirements that are quantifiable.
Procedures are formal methods of performing a task, based on a series of actions conducted in a defined and repeatable manner.
Controls are technical or administrative safeguards that may prevent, detect or lessen the ability of the threat actor to exploit a vulnerability.
Metrics are designed to facilitate decision-making, improve performance, and improve accountability through the collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related data.
The DSP leverages the Security Metrics Reporting Model to develop a practical view towards implementing a sustainable metrics reporting capability. At the end of the day, executive management (e.g., CIO, CEO, Board of Directors (BoD), etc.) want an answer to a relatively-straightforward question: “Are we secure?” In order for a CISO to honestly provide an answer, it requires a way for the CISO to measure and quantify an “apples and oranges” landscape where processes and technologies lack both uniform risk weighting and abilities to capture metrics. The SMRM helps solve this aspect of dissimilarity by utilizing a weighted approach to metrics that generate Key Performance Indexes (KPXs) as a way to logically-organize and report individual metrics. Using KPX enables the SMRM to provide a reasonable and defendable answer.
The “Are we secure?” question is best answered as a numerical score. This quantifiable score is used to visualize the score against a numerical spectrum to provides context, based on the risk profile of the organization. The numerical score would land between “not secure” and “secure” on the spectrum, according to a baseline score definition that would be specific to the organization. This can provide long-term trending to evaluate the direct impact of certain security initiatives. Through automating the SMRM in a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) or Integrated Risk Management (IRM) platform, the “Are we secure?” question can be both tracked to display trending and can be drilled down into KPXs, or individual metrics, to identify why the score changed.
Key Performance Index (KPX) is essentially a term that we use to normalize the various metrics in each category. One area of contention with metrics is defining what a KPI or KRI is since people tend to butcher the terminology. Our approach to defining those terms are shown below:
Key Performance Indexes (KPXs)
KPXs are logical groupings of KPIs that allow an organization to monitor an index of metrics about a specific capability or team.
- KPXs are used to answer the question, “Is the XYZ capability operating effectively?” where that capability is an aggregation of multiple individual metrics.
- KPXs may be weighted to highlight risk-heavy topics of concern.
- KPXs may be nested underneath other KPXs to report the hierarchical nature of metrics that help answer the question of “Are we secure?”
KPIs and KRIs are not hierarchical metrics, but are individual metrics that are deemed important to monitor, based on the specific risk or value associated with that metric:
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
- KPIs are “rearward facing” and focus on historical trending to evaluate performance.
- KPIs should not be weighted.
- KPIs are indicators that enable an organization to monitor its progress towards achieving its defined performance targets.
- KPIs are used to answer the question, “Are we achieving our desired levels of performance?” for a specific control.
Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)
- KRIs are “forward facing” and focus on identifying a future-looking trend that impacts risk.
- KRIs should not be weighted.
- KRIs are indicators that enable an organization to define its risk profile and monitor changes to that profile.
- KRIs are used to answer the question, “Are we within our desired risk tolerance level?” for a specific control.
The metrics shown in this model are included in the ComplianceForge Digital Security Program (DSP) product. Being transparent on the subject, the entire point of a "canned solution" for metrics is to provide a starting point where someone else does the heavy lifting for you to get to a 70-80% solution that someone within your organization can then run with to customize for your specific needs. This is where ComplianceForge is a business accelerator - we enable you to hit the ground running with your cybersecurity documentation that can takes months or years to create on your own. The "heavy lifting" of the equation is what we provide, not the finalized metrics product. That is really where the demarcation is between what ComplianceForge offers for metrics and how an organization would customize the remaining since you have the organization-specific knowledge side of the metrics equation that cannot be templatized. Please feel free to contact us with your questions.
ComplianceForge does not sell the KPIs/KRIs on their own, since the metrics are part of the DSP solution. With the 1-1 mapping relationship between the DSP and the Secure Controls Framework (SCF), the DSP can help operationalize the SCF controls in a meaningful and efficient manner, so that is something to consider for organizations that want to fully adopt the SCF as its control structure and maximize its effectiveness.
While nearly all organizations have “security policies” in place, it is a sad reality that many are outdated, improperly scoped, and inadvertently add to technical debt. Quite simply, most security policies were never designed to scale as the organization grows or technologies evolve and are more of a liability than benefit. If that is your organization, the DSP can be a “quick win” to dramatically advance the maturity of your security program.
The DSP is a different animal – it is built to scale and adapt to the needs of the organization. The modular nature of the DSP means that each policy has its own standards, all the way down to controls and metrics. This hierarchical nature makes mapping metrics to policies a breeze, due to the logical organization of the documentation.
[click to see an example of the Excel content]
DUE CARE & DUE DILIGENCE – JUMP START YOUR RACI FOR “OWNERSHIP” OF STANDARDS
We went the extra mile to help create a basic RACI-type mapping that identifies both the target audiences, but also the key stakeholders for each standard. It is all customizable, since it is Excel, but it enables you to hit the ground running.
[click to see an example of the Excel content]
“GOLDILOCKS” CONTROLS – NOT TOO BIG AND NOT TOO SMALL. JUST RIGHT.
The DSP uses the NIST Cybersecurity Controls Framework (CSF) version 1.1 for its control set, so the controls are aligned with a leading framework for expected security controls. Key controls are identified from this control set and metrics are mapped to these controls. Again, being Excel it is editable for your needs.
[click to see an example of the Excel content]
ACCELERATING YOUR BUSINESS – MAPPING STANDARDS TO LEADING FRAMEWORKS
The DSP maps twenty-four (24) leading frameworks! This includes the most common statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements that are expected from a security program.
[click to see an example of the Excel content]
ACCELERATING YOUR BUSINESS – MAPPING CONTROLS TO METRICS, KPIS AND KRIS
Metrics are the bane of many cybersecurity professionals’ existence. Unfortunately, this is due in large part to poor program-level documentation. Without alignment with leading frameworks (e.g., NIST Cybersecurity Framework, CIS Critical Security Controls, ISO 27002, etc.), it is unlikely that an organization’s management will know the correct questions to ask when measuring performance. That is why the tired and generally useless metric of “how many port scans the firewall blocked” still exists in many companies. We want to help change that with the DSP!
The DSP provides you with usable metrics to prove the status of the controls, which in turn allows you to report on the health of your overall security program.
[click to see an example of the Excel content]
Creating A Cybersecurity Program Based On Multiple Leading Frameworks Is Achievable With A Metaframework!
Our DSP covers the following leading frameworks and requirements. The DSP comes with an Excel spreadsheet that provides the mapping for the standards to these references. The DSP currently maps to well over 100 frameworks that includes mapped coverage of the following cybersecurity and privacy-related statutory, regulatory and contractual frameworks:
|Geography||Source||Authoritative Source - Statutory / Regulatory / Contractual / Industry Framework||Version|
|Universal||AICPA||Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP)||N/A|
|Universal||AICPA||Service Organization Control - Trust Services Criteria (TSC) - SOC2||2016|
|Universal||AICPA||Service Organization Control - Trust Services Criteria (TSC) - SOC2||2017|
|Universal||CIS||Critical Security Controls (CSC)||6.1|
|Universal||CIS||Critical Security Controls (CSC)||7.1|
|Universal||COSO||Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) 2013 Framework||2013|
|Universal||COSO||Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) 2017 Framework||2017|
|Universal||CSA||Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)||3.0.1|
|Universal||EU||European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)||2.0|
|Universal||ISACA||Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (COBIT)||5|
|Universal||ISACA||Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (COBIT)||2019|
|Universal||ISO||27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) - Requirements||2013|
|Universal||ISO||27002 - Code of Practice for Information Security Controls||2013|
|Universal||ISO||27018 - Code of Practice for PI in Public Clouds Acting as PI Processors||2014|
|Universal||ISO||29100 - Privacy Framework||2011|
|Universal||ISO||31000 - Risk Management||2009|
|Universal||ISO||31010 - Risk Assessment Techniques||2009|
|Universal||MPAA||MPAA Content Security Best Practices Common Guidelines||4.04|
|Universal||NAIC||Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)||N/A|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-37 - Guide for Applying the RMF to Federal Information Systems rev1||1|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-37 - Guide for Applying the RMF to Federal Information Systems rev2||2|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-39 - Managing Information Security Risk||N/A|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-53 - Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations||4|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-53 - Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations||5 (draft)|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-160 - Systems Security Engineering||N/A|
|Universal||NIST||SP 800-171 - Protecting CUI in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations||1|
|Universal||NIST||Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)||1.1 (Apr 19)|
|Universal||OWASP||Top 10 Most Critical Web Application Security Risks||2017|
|Universal||PCI SSC||Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)||3.2|
|Universal||SWIFT||SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework||2019|
|Universal||UL||2900-1 - Software Cybersecurity for Network-Connectable Products||N/A|
|US||Federal||US DOJ / FBI - Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy||N/A|
|US||Federal||Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7008||252.204-7008|
|US||Federal||Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012||252.204-7012|
|US||Federal||Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) / Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)||52.204-21|
|US||Federal||Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP)||Moderate|
|US||Federal||Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Food & Drug Administration (FDA)||21 CFR Part 11|
|US||Federal||Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act||N/A|
|US||Federal||Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices (HICP) - Small / Medium / Large Practice||N/A|
|US||Federal||Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1075||N/A|
|US||Federal||National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM)||N/A|
|US||Federal||North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX)||N/A|
|US||Federal||Social Security Administration (SSA) Electronic Information Exchange Security Requirements||8.0|
|US||State||AK - Alaska Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA)||N/A|
|US||State||CA - SB327||N/A|
|US||State||CA - SB1121 - California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)||43405|
|US||State||CA - SB1386||N/A|
|US||State||MA - 201 CMR 17.00||N/A|
|US||State||NY - NY DFS 23NYCRR500||N/A|
|US||State||NV - SB220||N/A|
|US||State||OR - ORS 646A||N/A|
|US||State||SC - South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act||N/A|
|US||State||TX - BC521||N/A|
|US||State||TX - Cybersecurity Act||N/A|
|US||State||TX - 2019 - SB820||N/A|
|EMEA||EU||General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)||N/A|
|EMEA||EU||Second Payment Services Directive (PSD2)||N/A|
|EMEA||Austria||Federal Act concerning the Protection of Personal Data (DSG 2000)||N/A|
|EMEA||Belgium||Act of 8 December 1992||N/A|
|EMEA||Czech Republic||Act No. 101/2000 on the Protection of Personal Data||N/A|
|EMEA||Denmark||Act on Processing of Personal Data (Act No. 429 of May 31, 2000)||N/A|
|EMEA||Finland||Personal Data Act (986/2000)||N/A|
|EMEA||France||78 17 / 2004 8021 - Information Technology, Data Files & Civil Liberty||N/A|
|EMEA||Germany||Cloud Computing Compliance Controls Catalogue (C5)||N/A|
|EMEA||Germany||Federal Data Protection Act||N/A|
|EMEA||Greece||Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data (2472/1997)||N/A|
|EMEA||Hungary||Informational Self-Determination and Freedom of Information (Act CXII of 2011)||N/A|
|EMEA||Ireland||Data Protection Act (2003)||N/A|
|EMEA||Israel||Cybersecurity Methodology for an Organization||1.0|
|EMEA||Israel||Protection of Privacy Law, 5741 – 1981||N/A|
|EMEA||Italy||Personal Data Protection Code||N/A|
|EMEA||Luxembourg||Protection of Personals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data||N/A|
|EMEA||Netherlands||Personal Data Protection Act||N/A|
|EMEA||Norway||Personal Data Act||N/A|
|EMEA||Poland||Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data||N/A|
|EMEA||Portugal||Act on the Protection of Personal Data||N/A|
|EMEA||Russia||Federal Law of 27 July 2006 N 152-FZ||N/A|
|EMEA||Russia||Russian Labor Code||N/A|
|EMEA||Slovak Republic||Protection of Personal Data (122/2013)||N/A|
|EMEA||South Africa||Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)||N/A|
|EMEA||Spain||Royal Decree 1720/2007 (protection of personal data)||N/A|
|EMEA||Sweden||Personal Data Act||N/A|
|EMEA||Switzerland||Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP)||N/A|
|EMEA||Turkey||Regulation on Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Communications Sector||N/A|
|EMEA||UAE||Data Protection Law No. 1 of 2007||N/A|
|EMEA||United Kingdom||Data Protection Act||N/A|
|APAC||Australia||Privacy Act of 1998||N/A|
|APAC||Australia||Australian Government Information Security Manual (ISM)||2017|
|APAC||China||Decision on Strengthening Network Information Protection||N/A|
|APAC||Hong Kong||Personal Data Ordinance||N/A|
|APAC||India||Information Technology Rules (Privacy Rules)||N/A|
|APAC||Indonesia||Government Regulation No. 82 of 2012||N/A|
|APAC||Japan||Act of the Protection of Personal Information||N/A|
|APAC||Malaysia||Personal Data Protection Act of 2010||N/A|
|APAC||New Zealand||Privacy Act of 1993||N/A|
|APAC||New Zealand||New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)||N/A|
|APAC||Philippines||Data Privacy Act of 2012||N/A|
|APAC||Singapore||Personal Data Protection Act of 2012||N/A|
|APAC||Singapore||Monitory Authority of Singapore (MAS) Technology Risk Management (TRM) Guidelines||N/A|
|APAC||South Korea||Personal Information Protection Act||N/A|
|APAC||Taiwan||Personal Data Protection Act||N/A|
|Americas||Argentina||Protection of Personal Law No. 25,326||N/A|
|Americas||Argentina||Protection of Personal Data - MEN-2018-147-APN-PTE||N/A|
|Americas||Bahamas||Data Protection Act||N/A|
|Americas||Brazil||General Data Protection Law (LGPD)||N/A|
|Americas||Canada||Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)||N/A|
|Americas||Chile||Act 19628 - Protection of Personal Data||N/A|
|Americas||Colombia||Law 1581 of 2012||N/A|
|Americas||Costa Rica||Protection of the Person in the Processing of His Personal Data||N/A|
|Americas||Mexico||Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data held by Private Parties||N/A|
|Americas||Peru||Personal Data Protection Law||N/A|
|Americas||Uruguay||Law No. 18,331 - Protection of Personal Data and Action "Habeas Data"||N/A|