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!”

I’ve spent a couple of days traveling around to agencies to teach.  It was fun but tiring, and the best part of it is that since I’m not teaching pure doctrine, I can include the “here’s how it works in real life” parts and some of the BSOFH parts–what I refer to as the “security management heretic thoughts”.

Some basic statements, the rest of this post will explain:

• C&A is a commodity market
• Security controls assessment is a commodity market
• PCI assessment is a commodity market
• Most MSSP (or rather, Security Device Management Service Providers) services are commodity markets

Now my boss said the first one to me about 4 months ago and it really needed some time for me to grasp the implications.  What we mean by “commodity market” is that since there isn’t really much of a difference between vendors, the vendors have to compete on having the lower price.

Now what the smart people will try to do is to take the commodity service and try to make it more of a boutique service by increasing the value.  Problem is that it only works if the customers play along and figure out how your service is different–usually what happens is you lose in the market simply because now you’re “too expensive”.

Where Boutique Sits by miss_rogue.

Since the security assessment world is a services business, the only way to compete in a commodity market is to pay your people less and try to charge more. But oh yeah, we compete on price, so that only leaves the paychecks as the way to keep the margin up.

Some ways that vendors will try to keep the assessment costs down:

• Hire cheaper people (yes, paper CISSPs)
• Try to reduce the engegement to a formula/methodlogy (ack, a checklist)
• It’s all about billability:  what percentage of your people’s time is not billable to clients? 
• Put people on assessments who have tangential skills just to keep them billable
• Use Cost-Plus-Margin or Time-Plus-Materials so that you can work more hours
• Use Firm-Fixed-Price contracts with highly reduced services ($150 PCI assessments)

Now inside Government contracting, there’s a fact that’s not known outside of the beltway:  your margins are fixed by the Government.  In other words, they only allow you to have around a 13-15% margin.  The way to make money is that the pie is a much bigger pie, even though you only get a small piece of it.  And yes, they do look at your accounting records and yes, there are loopholes, but for the most part, you can only collect this little margin.  If you stop and think about it, the Government almost forces the majority of its contractors into a commodity market.

Then we wonder why C&A engagements go so haywire…

The problem with commodity markets and vulnerability/risk/pen-test assessments is that your results, and by extension your ability to secure your data, are only as good as the skills and creativity of the people that the vendor sends.  Sounds like a problem?  It is.

So knowing this, how can you as the client get the most out of your service providers? This is a quick list:

• Every year (or every other), get an assessment from somebody who has a good reputation for being thorough (ie, a boutique)
• Be willing to pay more for services than the bottom of the market but be sure that you get quality people to go along with it, otherwise you’ve just added to the vendor’s margin with no real improvements to yourself
• Get assessments from multiple vendors across the span of a year or two–more eyes means different checklists
• Provide the assessors with your own checklists so you can steer them (tip from Dave Mortman)
• Self-identify vulnerabilities when appropriate (especially with vulnerabilities from previous assessments)
• Typical contracting fixes such as scope management, reviewing resumes of key personnel, etc
• Get lucky when the vendor hires really good people who don’t know how much they’re really worth (that was me 5 years ago)
• More than I’m sure will end up in the comments to this post  =)

And the final technique is that it’s all about what you do with the assessment results.  If you feed them into a mitigation plan (goviespeak: POA&M) and improve your security, it’s a win.

• Engagement Economics and Security Assessments
• Categories of Security Controls in Outsourcing
• Splunk Goes After the FISMA Lucre, They’re not Alone
• When the Feds Come Calling
• Split-Horizon Assessments and the Oversight Effect

Dear NIST People,

I have this semi-random digital scribbling thingie called a blog.  You might have heard of them.  Hey, you might have even at one point heard of mine.  =)

On my blog I let it be known that I am what the rest of the world would call a “NIST Cheerleader”.  I watch your every move.  I comment on your new publications.  I teach your framework every quarter.  From time to time, I criticize, but only because I have a foot in the theory of information security that you live and a foot in the implementation with agencies who know where the theory and models break.

The best thing that you have given us is not the risk management framework, it was SP 800-30, “Risk Management Guide for Information Systems”.  It’s small, to-the-point, and scalable from a single server to an entire IT enterprise.  Sure, the quants hate it, but for the quals and Government, it’s good enough.  I know private-sector organizations that use it.  One of my friends and blog readers/commenters was the guy who taught a group of people how to do risk assessment, then these same people went on to help you write the book.

I heard that you were in the process of revising SP 800-30.  While this is much needed to catch up/modernize, I want to make sure that 800-30 does not follow the “live by the catalog, die by the catalog” path that we seem to be following lately.  In other words, please don’t change risk assessment process to the following:

1. Determine boundary
2. Determine criticality
3. Conduct a gap assessment against a catalog of controls (SP 800-53/800-53A)
4. Attach a priority to mitigation
5. Perform risk avoidance because compliance models are yes/no frameworks
6. Document
7. ???
8. Profit!

At Your Own Risk Photo by  Mykl Roventine.

The reason that I am writing this is to let you know that I have noticed a disturbing trend in how now that we have a catalog of controls, the risk management framework is focusing more and more heavily on the catalog as the vehicle for determine an adequate level of security.  Some of this is good, some of this is not.

Why am I so concerned about this?  Well, inside the Government we have 2 conflicting ideas on information security:  compliance v/s risk management.  While we are fairly decent Government-wide at compliance management, the problem that we have is in risk management because risk management is only as good as the people who perform the risk assessment.  Not that we don’t have competent people, but the unknowns are what will make or break your security program, and the only way that you can known the unknowns is to get multiple assessments aimed at risks outside of the control catalog.

However, if you change the risk assessment process to a “catalog of controls gap analysis” process, then we’ve completely lost risk management in favor of compliance management.  To me, this is a disturbing trend that needs to be stopped.

Thank you for your time

–Rybolov

• Observations on SP 800-37R1
• Workin’ for the ‘Counters: an Analysis of my Love-Hate Relationship with the CPAs
• Reinventing FedRAMP
• It’s a Problem of Scale!
• Now ISC2 Blogs have an Opinion on FISMA

 Ah yes, my favorite subject to bash: compliance.  Better comply or GAO will report you. =)

• TIC: Made for LOLCATS
• Preliminary Findings on Cybersecurity Review Now Out
• Legacy Systems: Where the Catalog Falls Apart and LOLCATS Roam
• LOLCATS Get Fingerprinted
• Cyber-Workforce Training?