So by now NIST SP 800-37 R1 has made the rounds.  I want to take a couple of minutes to go over my theory on this update.

Summary of changes:

• Certification is gone.  Accreditation has now changed to “Authorization”.  This is interesting to me because it removes certification which I’ve always equated with compliance.
• There is more focus on continuous monitoring.
• NIST has made it more obvious that the process in 800-37 is the security aspects of a SDLC.
• There is much more more emphasis on enterprise-level controls.

So those of you out there who have been succeeding with the NIST Risk Management Framework  have been doing this all along, and it’s actually why you’ve succeeded.  For the rest of you, if you have to change your existing process, you’ve been doing it wrong.

Now for what’s missing and where you need to fill in the gaps:

• Prioritization of controls.  If everything is important, nothing is important.  You have to be able to determine which controls you need to succeed 100% of the time and which controls only need 75% reliability.  Hey, I even give credit to the SANS 20 Critical Security Controls, as flawed as they are, for this.
• Delineation of controls into shared/common, hybrid, and system-specific.  This is by design, it’s up to the departments and agencies to figure this out.  If you do this correctly, you save a ton of time and effort.  I remember the day my certifier told me that we didn’t recognize shared controls and that it was on me to provide evidence of controls that were provided at the enterprise–it still baffles me how you really expect one person on a project team to have the resources of the entire IT security staff.
• Continuous monitoring is up to you.  Along with prioritization, you have to determine which controls you need to monitor and a plan on how to do that.  Protip: these are usually technical controls that you can automate and should do so because it’s the only way to get the job done.
• Tailor, tailor, tailor.  It is not enough to use generic 800-53 controls.  It definitely is sub-par to use untailored 800-53A test procedures as your test plan.  These all depend on the implementation and need to be tailored to fit.

And finally, a shout-out to Dan Philpott at FISMAPedia.org.  Dan literally consumes new legislation, regulation, guidelines, and standards as they come out and annotates them with a wealth of analysis.

800-37 WordCloud by ME! Thanks to wordle.net for the tool to make it.

• SP 800-53A Now Finally Final
• NIST Cloud Conference Recap
• Special Publication 800-53 Revision 3 Workshop
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• Some Comments on SP 800-39

Every once in a while an opportunity presents itself to affect some real change in federal information security practice.  Now is such a time.  A slew of new NIST documents are being released between now and April.  These are the core NIST documents that describe how to satisfy FISMA.  They include NIST SPs 800-30 Revision 1, 800-39, 800-37 Revision 1 and 800-53A Revision 1. That’s where you come in.

The documents define what federal government practice will look like in the coming years.  If they are flawed then the practice will be flawed.  To prevent stupidity from leaking in when nobody is looking NIST releases the documents as drafts so everyone gets a chance to eyeball them.  First you eyeball, then you comment.  They look at the comments and they fix the flaws.  Fix the flaws now and you don’t live with them later.

The most important document in draft right now is the NIST Special Publication 800-37 Revision 1.  This document describes the central processes involved in the authorization of information systems that support the federal government.  Notice I didn’t say Certification and Accreditation?  That’s because C&A is deader than a sheep at a wolf convention. Want to know what replaces it?  Pick up a copy of NIST SP 800-37r1 FPD, give it a read and send in your comments.

Better yet, consider joining a formal document review process.  I’m leading a team of hale and hearty volunteers at OWASP in a NIST SP 800-37r1 FPD review and we’d love to have you come join the fun.   We’re on a tight schedule so now is the time to act.

Time is short, the comment period for NIST SP 800-37 Revision 1 FPD ends on December 31st, 2009.

• The Guerilla CISO Rants: Don’t Write a System Security Plan
• Observations on SP 800-37R1
• NIST Cloud Conference Recap
• William Jackson on FISMA: It Works, Maybe
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

A small presentation Dan Philpott and I put together for Potomac Forum about getting sane social media policy out of your security staff. I also recommend reading something I put out a couple of months ago about Social Media Threats and Web 2.0.

• DojoCon 2009 Presentation
• The Accreditation Decision and the Authorizing Official
• Massively Scaled Security Solutions for Massively Scaled IT
• Metricon 5 Wrapup
• Certification and Accreditation Seminar, March 30th and 31st

For those of you who didn’t know the real purpose of DojoCon, it was to raise money and awareness for Hackers for Charity. If you like anything that is in this post, go to HFC and make a donation of time, equipment, tech support, and maybe money. If you’ve never heard of HFC because you’re not one of the “InfoSec Cool Kids”, now is your chance–go read about them.

The video of my dojocon presentation. The microphone was off for the first couple of minutes but I look pretty animated.

And then the compliance panel that I tried not to dominate:

And finally, my slides are up on slideshare:

• Massively Scaled Security Solutions for Massively Scaled IT
• Building A Modern Security Policy For Social Media and Government
• Barcode Hacking
• Metricon 5 Wrapup
• DojoCon DDoS Video

OK, I know you’re shocked…I’m saying something controversial.  But hear me out on this one, I’ll explain.

Now this is my major beef with the way we write SSPs today:  this is all information that is contained in other artifacts that I have to pay people to do cut-and-paste to get it into a SSP template.  As practiced, we seriously have a problem with polyinstantiation of data in various lifecycle artifacts that is cut-and-pasted into an SSP.  Every time you change the upstream document, you create a difference between that document and the SSP.

This is a practice I would like to change, but I can’t do it all by myself.

This is the skeleton outline of an SSP from Special Publication 800-18, the guide to writing an SSP:

1. Information System Name/Title–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
2. Information System Categorization–usually on a FIPS-199 memorandum
3. Information System Owner–In an assignment memo
4. Authorizing Official–In an assignment memo
5. Other Designated Contacts–In an assignment memo
6. Assignment of Security Responsibility–In assignment memos
7. Information System Operational Status–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
8. Information System Type–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
9. General System Description/Purpose–In the design document, Exhibit 300/53
10. System Environment–Common controls not inside the scope of our system
11. System Interconnections/Information Sharing–from Interconnection Security Agreements
12. Related Laws/Regulations/Policies–Should be part of the system categorization but hardly ever is on templates
13. Minimum Security Controls–800-53 controls descriptions which can easily be done in a Requirements Traceability Matrix
14. Information System Security Plan Completion Date–specific to each document
15. Information System Security Plan Approval Date–specific to each document

Now some of this has changed in practice a little bit–# 10 can functionally be replaced with a designation of common controls and hybrid controls.

So my line of thinking is that if we provide a 2-6-page system description with the names of the “guilty parties” and some inventory information, controls-specific Requirements Traceability Matrix, and a System Design Document, then we have the functional equivalent of an SSP.

Why have I declared an InfoSec fatwah against SSPs as currently practiced?

Well, my philosophy for operation is based on some concepts I’ve picked up through the years:

• Why run when you can walk, why walk when you can sit, why sit when you can lay down.  There is a time to spend effort on determining what the security controls are for a project.  You need to have them documented but it’s not cost-effective to be worried about format, which we do probably too much of today.
• Make it easy to do the right thing.  If we polyinstantiate security information, we have made something harder to maintain.  Easier to maintain means that it will get maintained instead of being shelfware.  I would rather have updated and accurate security information than overly verbose and well-polished documents that are inaccurate.
• Security is not a “security guy thing”–most problems are actually a management and project team problem.  My idea uses their SDLC artifacts instead of security-specific versions of artifacts.  My idea puts the project problems back in the project space where it belongs.
• If I have a security engineer who has a finite amount of hours in a day, I have to choose what they spend their time on.  If it’s a matter of vulnerability mitigation, patching, etc, or correcting SSP grammar, I know what I want him to do.  Then again, I’m still an infantryman deep down inside and I realize I have biases against flowery writing.

Criticisms to not writing a dedicated SSP document:

“My auditors are used to seeing the information in the same format at someplace they worked previously”. Believe it or not, I hear this quite a bit.  My response is along the lines of the fact that if you make your standard be what I’m suggesting for a security plan, then you’ve met all of the FISMA and 800-53 requirements and my personal requirement to “don’t do stupid stuff if you can help it”.

“My auditors will grill me to death if they have to page back and forth between several documents”.  This one also I’ve heard.  There are a couple of ways to deal with this.  One way to deal with this is that in your 800-53 Requirements Traceability Matrix you reference the source document.  Most auditors at this point bring up that you need to reference the official name, date of publication, and specific page/section of the reference and I think they need to get a life because they’ve taken us back to the maintainability problem.

“This is all too new-school and I can’t get over it”. Then you are a dinosaur and your kind deserves extinction.  =)

.

This blog post is for grecs at novainfosecportal.com who perked up instantly when I mentioned the concept months ago.  Finally got around to putting the text somewhere.

How to Plan the Perfect Dinner Party photo by kevindooley.

• Old Saint NIST: Ho Ho Hold on, what’s this?
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• Ooh, “The Word” is out on S 3474
• When the Feds Come Calling
• OMB Wants a Direct Report

Letter from GAO on how Congress can fix FISMA.  And oh yeah, the press coverage on it.

Now supposedly this was in response to an inquiry from Congress about “Please comment on the need for improved cyber security relating to S.773, the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009.”  This is S.773.

GAO is mixing issues and has missed the mark on what Congress asked for.  S.773 is all about protecting critical infrastructure.  It only rarely mentions government internal IT issues.  S.773 has nothing at all to do with FISMA reform.  However, GAO doesn’t have much expertise in cybersecurity outside of the Federal Agencies (they have some, but I would never call it extensive), so they reported on what they know.

The GAO report used the often-cited metric of an increase in cybersecurity attacks against Government IT systems growing from “5,503 incidents reported in fiscal year 2006 to 16,843 incidents in fiscal year 2008” as proof that the agencies are not doing anything to fix the problem.  I’ve questioned these figures before, it’s associated with the measurement problem and increased reporting requirements more than an increase in attacks.  Truth be told, nobody knows if the attacks are increasing and, if so, at what rate.  I would guess they’re increasing, but we don’t know, so quit citing some “whacked” metric as proof.

Reform photo by shevy.

GAO’s recommendations for FISMA Reform:

Clarify requirements for testing and evaluating security controls.  In other words, the auditing shall continue until the scores improve.  Hate to tell you this, but really all you can test at the national level is if the FISMA framework is in place, the execution of the framework (and by extension, if an agency is secure or not) is largely untestable using any kind of a framework.

Require agency heads to provide an assurance statement on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the agency’s information security program.  This is harkening back to the accounting roots of GAO.  Basically what we’re talking here is for the agency head to attest that his agency has made the best effort that it can to protect their IT.  I like part of this because part of what’s missing is “executive support” for IT security.  To be honest, though, most agency heads aren’t IT security dweebs, they would be signing an assurance statement based upon what their CIO/CISO put in the executive summary.

Enhance independent annual evaluations.  This has significant cost implications.  Besides, we’re getting more and more evaluations as time goes on with an increase in audit burden.  IE, in the Government IT security space, how much of your time is spent providing proof to auditors versus building security?  For some people, it’s their full-time job.

Strengthen annual reporting mechanisms.  More reporting.  I don’t think it needs to get strengthened, I think it needs to get “fixed”.  And by “fixed” I mean real metrics.  I’ve touched on this at least a hundred times, go check out some of it….

Strengthen OMB oversight of agency information security programs.  This one gives me brain-hurt.  OMB has exactly the amount of oversight that they need to do their job.  Just like more auditing, if you increase the oversight and the people doing the execution have the same amount of people and the same amount of funding and the same types of skills, do you really expect them to perform differently?

Rybolov’s synopsis:

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and I think that’s what GAO is doing here.  Since performance in IT security is obviously down, they suggest that more auditing and oversight will help.  But then again, at what point does the audit burden tip to the point where nobody is really doing any work at all except for answering to audit requests?

Going back to what Congress really asked for, We run up against a problem.  There isn’t a huge set of information about how the rest of the nation is doing with cybersecurity.  There’s the Verizon DBIR, the Data Loss DB, some surveys, and that’s about it.

So really, when you ask GAO to find out what the national cybersecurity situation is, all you’re going to get is a bunch of information about how government IT systems line up and maybe some anecdotes about critical infrastructure.

Coming to a blog near you (hopefully soon): Rybolov’s 5 steps to “fix” FISMA.

• A Funny Thing Happened Last Week on Capital Hill
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• FISMA Report Cards Issued–Response is Rote by Now
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”
• No, FISMA Doesn’t Require That, Silly Product Pushers