AI TEVV Third-Party Risk Management

Description

Mechanisms exist to assess, approve and continuously monitor third-party Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT):
(1) Components;
(2) Application Programming Interfaces (APIs); and/or
(3) Services used by AI agents for security, privacy and compliance.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Review third-party AI components before use

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Vendor assessment for third-party AI components and APIs

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Third-party AI component risk assessment process
∙ Ongoing monitoring policy

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal TPRM program for AI vendors
∙ API security testing
∙ Continuous monitoring of third-party AI

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise TPRM platform (e.g., OneTrust, BitSight)
∙ Automated third-party AI monitoring
∙ Supply chain security for AI components

SCR-CMM

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

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control, risk assessments, etc.).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ 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 AAT 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 assess, approve and continuously monitor third-party AAT:
(1) Components;
(2) Application Programming Interfaces (APIs); and/or
(3) Services used by AI agents for security, privacy and compliance.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

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.

1. Overview

Summary	Standard

1.1 References

1.2 Identified Requirements

1.3 Related Regulations

2. Identified Requirements

Requirements
Source	Requirement

3. Related Regulations

Regulations
Source	Regulation

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
Linktype	Issue
is related to	Semi-Annual
is related to	relative Control Weighting = 05
is related to	Process
is related to	Identify
is related to	SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
is related to	SCRM Focus Tier 3 TACTICAL
blocks	Inability to maintain individual accountability
blocks	Improper assignment of privileged functions
blocks	Privilege escalation
blocks	Unauthorized access
blocks	Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s)
blocks	Loss of integrity through unauthorized changes
blocks	Business interruption
blocks	Data loss / corruption
blocks	Reduction in productivity
blocks	Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to technical attack
blocks	Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non‐technical attack
blocks	Loss of revenue
blocks	Cancelled contract
blocks	Diminished competitive advantage
blocks	Diminished reputation
blocks	Fines and judgements
blocks	Unmitigated vulnerabilities
blocks	System compromise
blocks	Inability to support business processes
blocks	Incorrect controls scoping
blocks	Lack of roles & responsibilities
blocks	Inadequate internal practices
blocks	Inadequate third-party practices
blocks	Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks	Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks	Illegal content or abusive action
blocks	Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks	Improper response to incidents
blocks	Ineffective remediation actions
blocks	Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks	Inability to maintain situational awareness
blocks	Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks	Third-party physical security exposure
blocks	Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks	Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks	Use of product / service
blocks	Reliance on the third-party

Secure Controls Framework -
The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/

Terms & Conditions

The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.