A couple of months before I was activated and went to Afghanistan, I got a briefing from a Special Forces NCO who had done multiple tours in the desert.  One thing he said still sticks in my mind (obviously paraphrased):

“The Afghanis, they live in mud huts, they don’t have electricity, they are stick-people weighing 85 lbs, and to say that we could bomb them into the stone age would be an advancement in their technology level.  But never underestimate these people, they’re survivors.  They’ve survived 35 years of warfare, starting with the Soviets, then they fought a civil war before we arrived on the scene.  Never underestimate their ability to survive, and have respect for them because of who they are.”

Today, I feel the same way about government employees, even more so because it’s an election year:  they’re survivors.

Now time for what I see is the “real” reason why the government is doing badly (if that’s what you believe–opinions differ) at security: it’s all an issue of culture. I have a friend who converted a year ago to a GS-scale employee and took a class on what motivates government employees. Some of these are obvious:

• Pride at making a difference
• Helping people
• Supporting a cause
• Gaining unique experience on a global-class scope
• Job stability
• Retirement benefits

And one thing is noticeably absent: better pay and personal recognition.  Hey, sounds like me in the army.

The Companion Family Plan for Survival at Home photo by Uh … Bob.

Now I’m not trying to stereotype, but you need to know the organizational behavior pieces to understand how government security works. And in this case, the typical government employee is about as survival-aware as their Afghani counterpart.

Best advice I ever heard from a public policy wonk: the key to survival in this town is to influence everything you can get your hands on and never have your name actually written on anything.

In other words, don’t criticize, be nice to everybody even though you think they are a jerk, and avoid saying anything at all because you never know when it will be contrary to the political scene.  The Government culture is a silent culture. That’s why every day amazing things happen to promote security in the Government and you’ll never hear about it on the outside.

One of the reasons that I started blogging was to counter the naysayers who say that FISMA is failing and that the Government would succeed if they would just buy their product for technical policy compliance or end-to-end encryption.  Sadly, the true heroes in Government, the people who just do their job every day and try to survive a hostile political environment, are giving credit to the critics because of their silence.

Which brings me to my point:

Yes, my name is Rybolov and I’m a heretic, but this is the secret to security in the Government:  it’s cultural at all layers of the personnel stack.  Security (and innovation, now that I think about it) needs a culture of openness where it’s allowable to make mistakes and/or criticize.  Doesn’t sound like any government–local, state, or federal–that I’ve ever seen.  However, if you fix the culture, you fix the security.

• Some Thoughts on Comments to My Blog…
• Learning GovieSpeak: The Plum Book
• Cloud Computing and the Government
• In Which Our Protagonist Discovers We Need More Good Public Policy People Who Understand Security
• Auditors, Frameworks, and Philosophy

I’ve touched on this about a bazillion times, let me start today with a very simple statement:  due to the scale of the US Government, we cannot find enough skilled security people.

Part of the problem is that good security people need to know the following skills:

• IT technology: since the data more often than not is in a computer, you need to understand them
• People technology: policies and procedures for managing people
• Business sense:  understanding that you’re supporting business goals
• And for Government:  politics

Back when I was PFC Rybolov, my battalion commander told me something along the lines of “The intelligence world is a hard job, you have to be able to out-infantry the infantry, out-mechanic the mechanics, out-radio the radio guys, and you need to know a language.”  Security is pretty much the same thing–you have to out-techie the techies, out-business the MBAs, and out-jerkify the auditors.  =)

Sound complicated?  Yes, it is, and it’s hard to find people who can do all this.  IT is an employment niche, IT security is a niche to a niche.  And there isn’t enough people who have the experience to do it.

So how do we mitigate the staffing shortage?  Here is what we are doing today in the Government:

• CyberCorps scholarship program for undergrads and graduate students with a minimum government service obligation.
• Using other career fields in “crossover roles”–yes, accountants can be used for some light security tasks.  Some things that we think of as security are really Quality Assurance and Change Control jobs that we have a vested interest in making work.
• Using contractors in some roles such as ISSO, ISSM, etc.
• Automation as much as possible.  Technical is easier, the policy and procedures side takes longer.  What you’ll find out eventually is that good IT management is good security management.
• Hanging on methodologies to “automate” the process side of security.

Now this is cool and all, but it’s hard to sustain and really hard to justify as a long-term solution.  In order to support the Government, we need to create more people.  Cybercorps is a start, but the need is so much larger than the supply that we have to consider better ways to create Government security dweebs.

Do we need Security Awareness and Training?  Yes we do, but much more than what is being provided (think system administrator training and procurement specialist training, not end-user training), and as an internal recruiting pipeline.  Still, I don’t think that we can recruit enough people to “the dark side” and that we need to look outside the Beltway for people.  Problem is that DC is such an insular community and we don’t speak the same language as the rest of the world.

• NIST’S FISMA Pase II–Who Certifies Those who Certify the Certifiers?
• A Short History of Cyberwar Lookalikes
• Security Assessments as Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
• Cloud Computing and the Government
• In Response to “Cyber Security Coming to a Boil” Comments….

The perpetual draft document, SP 800-53A, has been officially released after 3 years.  Check out the announcement from NIST here.

Now the interesting thing to me is that NIST is working with some other players (DNI comes to mind) on reference implementations of 800-53A.  This is big, so big that I can’t add enough hyperbole to it.

Why do they need to do reference implementations?  Well, because by itself, SP 800-53A is dangerous if it’s given to people who “don’t get it”.  By that what I mean is this:

• SP 800-53 needs tailoring to distill into actual requirements.
• SP 800-53A needs a huge amount of tailoring to distill into test cases/procedures that match the tailoring that you did with 800-53.
• Taken at face value, 800-53 and 800-53A become the source of “death by compliance”.
• If you think the auditors could grill you to death with 800-53, 800-53A gives them tons more material.

Now time for a war story: I worked on a project where the contractor was having a hard time building a security program, mostly because they didn’t have the right staff to get the job done.  The government told the contractor to use 800-53A as a starting point, and 6 months of insanity followed with 13 “security engineers” in a conference room cranking out documentation that had no basis in reality.  At the end of it all, the contractor handed the Government a bill for $1M.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like the ideas behind 800-53A, but the first thing you need to know when you start using it is when you shouldn’t use it:

• Don’t run test procedures on every computer you have, use an automated tool and do spot-checks to validate that the automated tool works.
• Use less test procedures on low-criticality systems.
• “This procedure is conducted as part of the hardening validation process.”
• Common controls are even more important because you do not want the repetition of effort.

And whatever you do, don’t let 800-53A turn your risk management into a compliance activity.  It has all the potential to do that.

US Government Doc’s photo by Manchester Library.

• OMB Wants a Direct Report
• An Open Letter to NIST About SP 800-30
• Auditors, Frameworks, and Philosophy
• Security Assessments as Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
• Observations on SP 800-37R1

Check out this slideshow and this workshop paper from 2006 on some ideas that NIST and a fairly large advisory panel have put together about certification of C&A service providers.  I’ve heard about this for several years now, and it’s been fairly much on a hiatus since 2006, but it’s starting to get some eartime lately.

The interesting thing to me is the big question of certifying companies v/s individuals.  I think the endgame will involve doing both because you certify companies for methodology and you certify people for skills.

This is the problem with certification and accreditation services as I see it today:

• Security staffing shortage means lower priority:  If you are an agency CISO and have 2 skilled people, where are you going to put them?  Odds are, architecture, engineering, or some other high-payoff activity, meaning that C&A services are candidates for entry-level security staff.
• Centralized v/s project-specific funding:  Some agencies have a “stable” of C&A staff, if it’s done wrong, you end up with standardization and complete compliance but not real risk management.  The opposite of this is where all the C&A activities are done on a per-project basis and huge repetition of effort ensues.  Basic management technique is to blend the 2 approaches.
• Crossover of personnel from “risk-avoidance” cultures:  Taking people from compliance-centric roles such as legal and accounting and putting them into a risk-based culture is a sure recipe for failure, overspending, and frustration.
• Accreditation is somewhat broken:  Not a new concept–teaching business owners about IT security risk is always hard to do, even more so when they have to sign off on the risk.
• C&A services are a commodity market:  I covered this last week.  This is pivotal, remember it for later.
• Misinformation abounds:  Because the NIST Risk Management Framework evolves so rapidly, what’s valid today is not the same that will be valid in 2 years.

So what we’re looking at with this blog post is how would a program to certify the C&A service providers look like.  NIST has 3 viable options:

• Use Existing Certs: Require basic certification levels for role descriptions.  DoD 8570.1M follows this approach.  Individual-level certification would be CAP, CISSP, CG.*, CISA, etc.  The company-level certification would be something like ITIL or CMMI.
• Second-Party Credentialing:  The industry creates a new certification program to satisfy NIST’s need without any input from NIST.  Part of this has already happened with some of the certifications like CAP.
• NIST-Sponsored Certification:  NIST becomes the “owner” of the certification and commissions organizations to test each other.

Now just like DoD 8570.1M, I’m torn on this issue.  On one hand, it means that you’ll get a higher caliber of person performing services because they have to meet some kind of minimum standard.  On the other hand, introducing scarcity means that there will be even less people available to do the job.  But the big problem that I have is that if you introduce higher requirements on commodity services, you’re squeezing the market severely:  costs as a customer go up for basic services, vendors get even less of a margin on services, more charlatans show up because you’ve tipped over into higher-priced boutique services, and mayhem ensues.

Guys, I’m not really a rocket scientist on this, but really after all this effort, it seems to me that the #1 problem that the Government has is a lack of skilled people.  Yes, certifying people is a good thing because it helps weed out the dirtballs with a very rough sieve, but I get the feeling that maybe what we should be doing instead is trying to create more people with the skills we need.  Alas, that’s a future blog post….

However, the last thing that I want to see happen is a meta-game of what’s going on with certifications right now–who certifies those who certify?  I think it’s a vicious cycle of cross-certification that will end up with the entire Government security industry becoming one huge self-licking ice cream cone.  =)

• Now ISC2 Blogs have an Opinion on FISMA
• When the Feds Come Calling
• Splunk Goes After the FISMA Lucre, They’re not Alone
• Comments on SCAP 2008
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

Ever watch a marathon on TV?  There’s the usual formula for how we lay out the day:

• History of the marathon and Pheidippides
• Discussion of the race length and how it was changes so that the Queen could watch the finish
• World records and what our chances are for making one today
• Graphics of the race course showing the key hills and the “sprint to the finish”
• Talk about the womens’ marathon including Joan Benoit and Kathrine Switzer
• Description of energy depletion and “The Wall”
• Stats as the leaders hit the finsh line
• Shots of “back-of-the-pack” runners and the race against yourself

Well, I now present to you the formula for FISMA Report Cards:

• Paragraph about how agencies are failing to secure their data, the report card says so
• History and trending of the report card
• Discussion on changing FISMA
• Quote from Karen Evans
• Quote from Alan Paller about how FISMA is a failure and checklist-driven security
• Wondering when the government will get their act together

Have a read of Dancho’s response to the FISMA Report Card.  Pretty typical writing formula that you’ll see from journalists.  I won’t even comment on the “FISMA compliance” title.  Oh wait, I just did.  =)

Some myths about FISMA in particular that I need to dispell right now:

1. FISMA is a report card:  It’s a law, the grades are just an awareness campaign.  In fact, the whole series of NIST Special Publications are just implementation techniques–they are guidance after all.  Usually the media and bloggers talk about what FISMA measures and um, well, it doesn’t measure anything, it just requires that agencies have security programs based on a short list of criteria such as security planning, contingency planning, and security testing.  It just goes back to the adage that nobody really knows what FISMA is.
2. FISMA needs to be changed:  As a law, FISMA is exactly where it needs to be.  Yes, Congress does have talks about modifying FISMA, but not much has come of it because what they eventually discover after much debate and sword-waving is that FISMA is the way to write the law about security, the problem is with the execution at all levels–OMB, GAO, and the agencies–and typically across organizational boundaries and competing master agendas.
3. There is a viable alternative framework:  Dancho points out this framework in his post which is really an auditors’ plugin to the existing NIST Framework for FISMA.  Thing is, nobody has a viable alternative framework because it’s still going to be the same people with the same training executing in the same environment.

Urban Cell-Phone Fire Myth photo by richardmasoner.  This myth is dispelled at snopes.com.

Way back last year I wrote a blog post about indicator species and how we’re expecting the metrics to go up based on our continual measuring of them.  Every couple of months I go back and review it to see if it’s still relevant.  And the answer this week is “yes”.

Now I’ve been thinking and talking probably too much about FISMA and the grades over the past couple of years, so occassionally I come to conclusions .  According to Mr Vlad the Impaler, the report card is a bad idea, but I’m slowly beginning to see the wisdom of it:  it’s an opportunity to have a debate and to raise some awareness of Government security outside of those of us who do it.  The only other time that we have a public debate about security is after a serious data breach, and that’s not a happy time.

I just wish the media would stop with the story line that FISMA is failing because the grades provide recursive evidence of it.

• FISMA Report Cards Issued–Response is Rote by Now
• GAO’s 5 Steps to “Fix” FISMA
• A Funny Thing Happened Last Week on Capital Hill
• Random Thoughts on “The FISMA Challenge” in eHealthcare
• When the Feds Come Calling

The US Army occassionally does things right.

Well, one of the things that they do right is training. Our training process for squad and above is mostly focused around the Observer-Controller (OC) and their value proposition (my MBA word for the day, TYVM). Whenever you are training, there is an OC tagging right along with you to assess what and why you are doing something and then make recommendations at the end.

 

Observer-Controllers hard at work, photo by David Axe

What an OC brings with them (aside from their 31337 BBQ Ski11z):

• Experience of having seen the same task done hundreds of times with various groups.
• A strong understanding of the doctrinally-correct way to do a task.
• Techniques to fill out where doctrine is not specific enough.
• Sometimes they have pre-written standard operating procedures that they will share with you.

What an OC will never do:

• Use you resources to support themselves.
• Own the solution space for you.
• Criticize you in front of your troops.
• Interfere with your ability to do your mission.

Hmmm, sounds like the things that a good auditor does.

Auditors are in a fantastic position to help the auditee because of the wide range of experience in how other companies have been doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  Point is, there is a level of collusion that needs to happen between the auditor and the auditee, and the extent of that collusion is really what we’re talking about when we start looking at Separation of Duties and similar things.

Over the years, auditors and auditees have had the nature of their relationship change numerous times. Around the time of Sarbanes-Oxley, the pendulum swung wildly the way of “no relationship no how” and now it’s slowly moving back to somewhere normal. Here’s a podcast with Michael Oxley talking about how auditors need to collude better with the auditee.  Disclaimer:  this is part of a series that is produced by my firm, but I had no part in this, Mkay?

Here in DC, we have a saying (Ok, I made it up my own self):  “Collusion is not just a technique, it’s THE technique.”  =)

• Split-Horizon Assessments and the Oversight Effect
• A Niche to a Niche is Still Hard to Staff
• FISMA Report Card News, Formulas, and 3 Myths
• Cloud Computing and the Government
• Some Comments on SP 800-39