Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Risk Management Model (C|P-RMM)
Why You Should Care About The C|P-RMM
Ask yourself these two questions about your organization and your personal exposure in risk & threat management operations:
- Can you prove that the right people within your organization are both aware of risks and have taken direct responsibility for mitigating those risks?
- If there was a breach or incident that is due to identified risks that went unmitigated, where does the “finger pointing” for blame immediately go to? (Is it you? Would you have guilt by association?
Risks & Threats Do Not Exist In A Vacuum
It is vitally important to understand that risks and threats do not exist in a vacuum. If your cybersecurity and privacy program is appropriately built, you will have a robust controls framework where risks and threats will map directly to controls. Why is this?
- Controls are central to managing risks, threats, procedures and metrics; and
- Risks, threats, metrics and procedures need to map into the controls, which then map to standards and policies.
- Evaluates those controls based on the entity's THREAT CATALOG to identify current or potential control deficiencies; and
- Utilize the RISK CATALOG to identify the applicable risks, based on the identified control deficiencies.
Risks vs Threats vs Vulnerabilities
Risks, threats and vulnerabilities are commonly misunderstood. Fundamentally, vulnerability and risk management practices exist to achieve a minimum level of protection for an organization, which equates to a reduction in the total risk due to the protections offered by implemented controls. This can be conceptualized as a "risk management ecosystem" as it pertains to an organization's overall cybersecurity & data protection efforts. These ecosystem components have unique meanings that need to be understood to reasonably protect people, processes, technology and data, as shown below:

SCF Threat Catalog
The threat catalog use case is: What natural and man-made threats affect control execution? (e.g., if the threat materializes, will the control function as expected?)
This use case relies on the following definition of a threat:
- Noun - A person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
- Verb - To indicate impending damage or danger.
The risk catalog use case is: What are the risks associated with a control deficiency? (e.g., if the control fails, what risk(s) is the organization exposed to?)
This use case relies on the following definition of a risk:
- Noun - A situation where someone or something valued is exposed to danger, harm or loss.**
- Verb - To expose someone or something valued to danger, harm or loss.
** Danger: state of possibly suffering harm or injury
** Harm: material / physical damage
** Loss: destruction, deprivation or inability to use
Note - Some of these risks may indicate a deficiency that could be considered a failure to meet "reasonable security practices"
| Risk Grouping | Risk # | Risk |
Description of Possible Risk Due To Control Deficiency IF THE CONTROL FAILS, RISK THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS EXPOSED TO IS: |
| Access Control | R-AC-1 | Inability to maintain individual accountability | The inability to maintain accountability (e.g., asset ownership, non-repudiation of actions or inactions, etc.). |
| R-AC-2 | Improper assignment of privileged functions | The inability to implement least privileges (e.g., Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), Privileged Account Management (PAM), etc.). | |
| R-AC-3 | Privilege escalation | The inability to restrict access to privileged functions. | |
| R-AC-4 | Unauthorized access | The inability to restrict access to only authorized individuals, groups or services. | |
| Asset Management | R-AM-1 | Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s) | Lost, damaged or stolen assets. |
| R-AM-2 | Loss of integrity through unauthorized changes | Unauthorized changes that corrupt the integrity of the system / application / service. | |
| R-AM-3 | Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences | Emergent properties and/or unintended consequences from Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Technologies (AAT). | |
| Business Continuity | R-BC-1 | Business interruption | Increased latency, or a service outage, that negatively impact business operations. |
| R-BC-2 | Data loss / corruption | The inability to maintain the confidentiality of the data (compromise) or prevent data corruption (loss). | |
| R-BC-3 | Reduction in productivity | Diminished user productivity. | |
| R-BC-4 | Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to technical attack | A technical attack that compromises data, systems, applications or services (e.g., malware, phishing, hacking, etc.). | |
| R-BC-5 | Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non-technical attack | A non-technical attack that compromises data, systems, applications or services (e.g., social engineering, sabotage, etc.). | |
| Exposure | R-EX-1 | Loss of revenue | A negatively impact on the ability to generate revenue (e.g., a loss of clients or an inability to generate future revenue). |
| R-EX-2 | Cancelled contract | A cancelled contract with a client or other entity for cause (e.g., failure to fulfill obligations for secure practices). | |
| R-EX-3 | Diminished competitive advantage | Diminished competitive advantage (e.g., lose market share, internal dysfunction, etc.). | |
| R-EX-4 | Diminished reputation | Diminished brand value (e.g., tarnished reputation). | |
| R-EX-5 | Fines and judgements | Financial damages due to fines and/or judgements from statutory / regulatory / contractual non-compliance. | |
| R-EX-6 | Unmitigated vulnerabilities | Unmitigated technical vulnerabilities that lack compensating controls or other mitigation actions. | |
| R-EX-7 | System compromise | A compromise of a system, application or service that affects confidentiality, integrity, availability and/or safety. | |
| Governance | R-GV-1 | Inability to support business processes | Insufficient cybersecurity and/or privacy practices that cannot securely support the organization's technologies & processes. |
| R-GV-2 | Incorrect controls scoping | Missing or incorrect cybersecurity and/or privacy controls due to incorrect or inadequate control scoping practices. | |
| R-GV-3 | Lack of roles & responsibilities | Insufficient cybersecurity and/or privacy roles & responsibilities that cannot securely support the organization's technologies & processes. | |
| R-GV-4 | Inadequate internal practices | Insufficient cybersecurity and/or privacy practices that can securely support the organization's technologies & processes. | |
| R-GV-5 | Inadequate third-party practices | Insufficient Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) practices that cannot securely support the organization's technologies & processes. | |
| R-GV-6 | Lack of oversight of internal controls | The inability to demonstrate appropriate evidence of due diligence and due care in overseeing the organization's internal cybersecurity and/or privacy controls. | |
| R-GV-7 | Lack of oversight of third-party controls | The inability to demonstrate appropriate evidence of due diligence and due care in overseeing third-party cybersecurity and/or privacy controls. | |
| R-GV-8 | Illegal content or abusive action | Disruptive content or actions that negatively affect business operations (e.g., abusive content, harmful speech, threats of violence, illegal content, etc.). | |
| Incident Response | R-IR-1 | Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents | Insufficient incident response practices that prevent the organization from investigating and/or prosecuting incidents (e.g., chain of custody corruption, available sources of evidence, etc.). |
| R-IR-2 | Improper response to incidents | The inability to appropriately respond to incidents in a timely manner. | |
| R-IR-3 | Ineffective remediation actions | The inability to ensure incident response actions were correct and/or effective. | |
| R-IR-4 | Expense associated with managing a loss event | Financial repercussions from responding to an incident or loss. | |
| Situational Awareness | R-SA-1 | Inability to maintain situational awareness | The inability to detect cybersecurity and/or privacy incidents (e.g., a lack of situational awareness). |
| R-SA-2 | Lack of a security-minded workforce | The inability to appropriately educate and train personnel to foster a security-minded workforce. | |
| Supply Chain | R-SC-1 | Third-party cybersecurity exposure | Loss of Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) from third-party cybersecurity practices, vulnerabilities and/or incidents that affects the supply chain through impacted products and/or services. |
| R-SC-2 | Third-party physical security exposure | Loss of Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) from physical security exposure of third-party structures, facilities and/or other physical assets that affects the supply chain through impacted products and/or services. | |
| R-SC-3 | Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls | Loss of Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability and/or Safety (CIAS) from "downstream" third-party relationships, visibility and controls that affect the supply chain through impacted products and/or services. | |
| R-SC-4 | Third-party compliance / legal exposure | The inability to maintain compliance due to third-party non-compliance, criminal acts, or other relevant legal action(s). | |
| R-SC-5 | Use of product / service | The misuse of the product / service in a manner that it was not designed or how it was approved for use. | |
| R-SC-6 | Reliance on the third-party | The inability to continue business operations, due to the reliance on the third-party product and/or service. |
Risk Management: The Path To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
In risk management, the old adage is applicable that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” Often, risk management personnel are tasked with creating risk assessments and questions to ask without having a centralized set of organization-wide cybersecurity and privacy controls to work from. This generally leads to risk teams making up risks and asking questions that are not supported by the organization’s policies and standards. For example, an organization is an “ISO shop” that operates an ISO 27002-based Information Security Management System (ISMS) to govern its policies and standards, but its risk team is asking questions about NIST SP 800-53 or 800-171 controls that are not applicable to the organization.
This scenario of “making up risks” points to a few security program governance issues:
- If the need for additional controls to cover risks is legitimate, then the organization is improperly scoped and does not have the appropriate cybersecurity and privacy controls to address its applicable statutory, regulatory, contractual or industry-expected practices.
- If the organization is properly scoped, then the risk team is essentially making up requirements that are not supported by the organization’s policies and standards.
The C|P-RMM takes a holistic approach to controls, risks and threats as a way to reduce or eliminate the traditional Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) that makes many risk assessments meaningless.
Risk Management Basics
The most important concept to understand in cybersecurity and privacy-related risk management is that the cybersecurity and IT departments generally do not “own” risk. The reality of the situation is that risk management is a business management decision, where the cybersecurity and privacy functions primarily serve as a mechanism to educate those business stakeholders on identified risks and provide possible risk treatment solutions. Right or wrong, business management is ultimately able to decide how risk is to be handled.
Where the Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Risk Management Model (C|P-RMM) exists is to help cybersecurity and privacy functions create a repeatable methodology to identify, assess, report and mitigate risk. This is based on the understanding that the responsibility to approve a risk treatment solution rests with the management of the team/department/line of business that “owns” the risk. The C|P-RMM is meant to guide the decision to one of these common risk treatment options:
- Reduce the risk to an acceptable level;
- Avoid the risk;
- Transfer the risk to another party; or
- Accept the risk
It is a common problem for individuals who are directly impacted by risk to simply say, “I accept the risk” and wish the risk away so that the project/initiative can proceed without having to first address deficiencies. This is why it is critically important that as part of a risk management program to identify the various levels of management who have the legitimate authority to make risk management decisions. This can help prevent low-level managers from recklessly accepting risk that should be reserved for more senior management.
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Risk Management Model (C|P-RMM) - "Start To Finish" Steps
The C|P-RMM breaks risk management down to seventeen (17) steps. Please download the guide for the overview and you can click on the image below for a PDF version of the C|P-RMM infographic. The C|P-RMM breaks risk management down to 16 steps. Please download the guide for the overview and you can click on the image below for a PDF version of the C|P-RMM infographic. The C|P-RMM provides a clear method to calculate both inherent and residual risk. Please download the guide for the overview and you can click on the image below for a PDF version of the C|P-RMM infographic.

