creator/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git synced 2026-07-18 21:49:40 +03:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
d5f3fa32486ea335db802d68fe2147fa2da69583
Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills/skills/performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment/SKILL.md
T
mukul975 efca3ec611 feat: add NIST CSF 2.0 nist_csf field to all 754 cybersecurity skills 
Mapped every skill to NIST CSF 2.0 subcategory IDs (GV/ID/PR/DE/RS/RC functions)
based on subdomain and content analysis. Restores 11 skills corrupted during
prior rebase, re-enriching with ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF, and CSF 2.0 fields.

All 754 skills now carry structured mappings for all 5 security frameworks:
- MITRE ATT&CK (in tags)
- MITRE ATLAS v5.5 (atlas_techniques)
- MITRE D3FEND v1.3 (d3fend_techniques)
- NIST AI RMF 1.0 (nist_ai_rmf)
- NIST CSF 2.0 (nist_csf)
2026-04-06 11:17:40 +02:00

5.8 KiB
Raw Blame History

name, description, domain, subdomain, tags, nist_csf, version, author, license
name description domain subdomain tags nist_csf version author license
performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, released in February 2024, provides a comprehensive taxonomy for managing cybersecurity risk through six core Functions - Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This skill covers conducting a maturity assessment against the CSF using Implementation Tiers to measure organizational cybersecurity posture and create improvement roadmaps. cybersecurity compliance-governance
compliance
governance
nist
csf
maturity-assessment
risk-management
GV.OC-01
GV.RM-01
GV.PO-01
ID.RA-01
GV.OV-01
1.0 mahipal Apache-2.0

Performing NIST CSF Maturity Assessment

Overview

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, released in February 2024, provides a comprehensive taxonomy for managing cybersecurity risk through six core Functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This skill covers conducting a maturity assessment against the CSF, using the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) to measure organizational cybersecurity posture and create improvement roadmaps.

When to Use

  • When conducting security assessments that involve performing nist csf maturity assessment
  • When following incident response procedures for related security events
  • When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities
  • When validating security controls through hands-on testing

Prerequisites

  • Understanding of cybersecurity risk management principles
  • Access to NIST CSF 2.0 documentation and reference tool
  • Knowledge of organizational IT/OT environment and security controls
  • Stakeholder access across business units for assessment interviews

Core Concepts

CSF 2.0 Functions (6 Functions, 22 Categories)

Function Code Categories Purpose
Govern GV 6 Establish and monitor cybersecurity risk management strategy
Identify ID 3 Determine current cybersecurity risk to the organization
Protect PR 5 Implement safeguards to prevent or reduce risk
Detect DE 2 Find and analyze possible cybersecurity attacks
Respond RS 4 Take action regarding detected cybersecurity incidents
Recover RC 2 Restore capabilities impaired by cybersecurity incidents

Govern Function (New in CSF 2.0)

  • GV.OC: Organizational Context
  • GV.RM: Risk Management Strategy
  • GV.RR: Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities
  • GV.PO: Policy
  • GV.OV: Oversight
  • GV.SC: Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management

Implementation Tiers

Tier Name Description
Tier 1 Partial Ad hoc, reactive; limited awareness of cybersecurity risk
Tier 2 Risk-Informed Risk-aware but not organization-wide; approved but may not be policy
Tier 3 Repeatable Formal policies; consistently implemented; regularly updated
Tier 4 Adaptive Continuous improvement; real-time risk response; lessons learned integrated

Workflow

Phase 1: Scoping and Preparation (Weeks 1-2)

  1. Define assessment scope (enterprise-wide vs. business unit)
  2. Identify stakeholders and schedule interviews
  3. Gather existing documentation (policies, procedures, architecture diagrams)
  4. Customize CSF Profile for organizational context
  5. Select assessment methodology (self-assessment, facilitated, third-party)

Phase 2: Current State Assessment (Weeks 3-6)

  1. Assess each CSF Category and Subcategory against Implementation Tiers
  2. For each subcategory, evaluate:
    • Policy/documentation maturity
    • Implementation completeness
    • Automation level
    • Measurement and metrics
    • Continuous improvement evidence
  3. Score using tier criteria (1-4 scale)
  4. Document evidence supporting each tier rating
  5. Identify strengths, gaps, and improvement areas

Phase 3: Target State Definition (Weeks 7-8)

  1. Define target tier for each Function based on:
    • Risk appetite and tolerance
    • Industry requirements and benchmarks
    • Regulatory obligations
    • Available resources and budget
  2. Create Target Profile documenting desired maturity state
  3. Validate target state with executive leadership

Phase 4: Gap Analysis and Roadmap (Weeks 9-12)

  1. Compare Current Profile to Target Profile
  2. Prioritize gaps based on risk reduction potential
  3. Develop improvement roadmap with:
    • Short-term quick wins (0-3 months)
    • Medium-term improvements (3-12 months)
    • Long-term strategic initiatives (12-24 months)
  4. Estimate resource requirements for each initiative
  5. Assign ownership and timelines

Phase 5: Implementation and Reassessment (Ongoing)

  1. Execute improvement roadmap initiatives
  2. Track progress against milestones
  3. Conduct periodic reassessments (annually recommended)
  4. Report maturity progress to leadership
  5. Adjust roadmap based on evolving threats and business changes

Key Artifacts

  • CSF Current Profile (by Function/Category/Subcategory)
  • CSF Target Profile
  • Gap Analysis Report
  • Maturity Assessment Scorecard
  • Improvement Roadmap with Priorities
  • Executive Summary and Dashboard

Common Pitfalls

  • Assessing technology only without evaluating governance and people
  • Setting unrealistic target tiers without resource commitment
  • Treating assessment as one-time rather than continuous process
  • Ignoring the new Govern function in CSF 2.0
  • Not aligning CSF assessment with existing compliance requirements (ISO 27001, SOC 2)

References

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink