While you were looking the other way, OMB released their Fiscal Year 2008 Report to Congress on Implementation of The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.  Mostly it’s just the verbatim responses from the agencies and a rollup of the numbers with scarcely any analysis.

It’s interesting to contrast this with last year’s report which had a huge chunk of analysis.  In my cynical hours, I like to mentally replace “analysis” with “spin”, but not today.  =)

Another interesting thing is that since they published the actual responses, you can get some analysis like Angela Gunn of BetaNews provides.

My opinion: metrics are good, raw data is better.

Government transparency in action?  Maybe.  New staffers at OMB? Also likely.

Another interesting and related article is this one from Federal Computer News on Government security metrics. Yes, they need to be reconsidered, but for the most part the existing metrics are aimed at the major provisions of FISMA the LAW which is very high-level and very management-centric.  But hey, that’s what the law is supposed to provide, but more on that later.

• FISMA Report Cards Issued–Response is Rote by Now
• Next Up in Security Legislation: S3474
• GAO’s 5 Steps to “Fix” FISMA
• OMB Wants a Direct Report
• FISMA Report Card News, Formulas, and 3 Myths

The Consensus Audit Guidelines (CAG) appear, at this point, to be a reasonable set of guidelines for mediating some human threats. I’m looking forward to seeing what CAG offers and have no doubt there will be worthwhile and actionable controls in the document. That said, there are significant reasons approach CAG with skepticism and assess it critically.

The motivation for CAG is described in a set of slides at the Gilligan Group site. It starts with a focus on what CIO’s fear most: attacks, reduced operational capability, public criticism, data loss, etc. Then it rightly questions whether FISMA is adequately addressing those problems. It doesn’t and this is the genesis of the CAG.

Consensus photo by Eirik Newth.

Unfortunately CAG subsequently develops by pairing this first valid premise with a set of false premises.  These propositions are drawn from slides at gilligangroupinc.com, attributed to John Gilligan or Alan Paller:

1. All that matters are attacks. The central tenet of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative (CNCI) is adopted as the CAG theme: “Defense Must Be Informed by the Offense”. CAG envisions security as defense against penetration attacks. As any seasoned security practitioner knows, attacks are a limited subset of the threats to confidentiality, integrity and availability that information and information systems face.
2. Security through obscurity. CAG seems to have taken the unspoken CNCI theme to heart too, “The most effective security is not exposed to public criticism.” Since its very public December 11th announcement no drafts have been made publicly available for comment.
3. False dichotomy. CAG has been promoted as an alternative to the OMB/NIST approach to FISMA. It isn’t. An alternative would target a fuller range of threats to information and information system security. CAG should be considered a complement to NIST guidance, an addendum of security controls focused on defense against penetration by hackers. NIST has even acted on this approach by including some CAG controls into the 800-53 Rev. 3 catalog of controls.
4. There is too much NIST guidance! This is the implication of one CAG slide that lists 1200 pages of guidance, 15 FIPS docs and the assorted Special Publications not related to FISMA as detriments to security. It’s like complaining that Wikipedia has too many articles to contribute to improved learning. Speaking as someone who scrambled to secure Federal systems before FISMA and NIST’s extensive guidance, having that documentation greatly improves my ability to efficiently and effectively secure systems.
5. NIST guidance doesn’t tell me how to secure my systems! NIST’s FISMA guidance doesn’t step you through securing your SQL Server. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs also doesn’t deliver your milk. Why not? It’s not their job. NIST’s FISMA guidance helps you to assess the risks to the system, decide how to secure it, secure it accordingly, check that a minimum of controls are in place and then accept responsibility for operating the system. NIST also provides documents, checklists, repositories, standards, working groups and validation of automated tools that help with the actual security implementation.
6. Automated security controls negate human errors. With the premise of all threats being attacks this is nearly a plausible premise. But not all security is technical. Not all threats come from the Internet. DHS, NIST, Mitre, and their partners have pursued automated security controls to enforce and audit security controls for years but automated security controls can only go so far. Human errors, glitches, unexpected conflicts and operational requirements will always factor into the implementation of security.
7. Audit compatibility as a hallmark of good security. There is a conflict of focus at the heart of the CAG, it seeks to both improve its subset of security and improve audit compatibility. For technical controls this is somewhat achievable using automation, something NIST has pursued for years with government and industry partners. For operational and management controls it results in audit checklists. But audits are fundamentally concerned with testing the particular and repeatable, security needs focus on evaluating the whole to ensure the necessary security results. An audit sees if antivirus software is installed, an evaluation sees if the antivirus software is effective.
8. Metrics, but only these metrics over here. When selecting the current crop of CAG controls decisions on what to include were reportedly based on metrics of the highest threats. Great idea, a quantitative approach often discovers counter-intuitive facts. Only the metrics were cherry picked. Instead of looking at all realized threats or real threat impacts only a count of common penetration attacks were considered.
9. With a sample of 1. As a basis for determining what security should focus on the whole breadth of the security profession was queried, so long as they were penetration testers. Yes, penetration testers are some very smart and talented people but penetration testing is to security what HUMINT is to intelligence services. Important players, expert practitioners but limited in scope and best used in conjunction with other intelligence assets.
10. Assessments rely on paper artifacts. The NIST guidance does not require paper artifacts. The first line in the NIST SP 800-53A preface is, “Security control assessments are not about checklists, simple pass-fail results, or generating paperwork to pass inspections or audits-rather, security controls assessments are the principal vehicle used to verify that the implementers and operators of information systems are meeting their stated security goals and objectives.” NIST SP 800-37 specifically and repeatedly states, “Security accreditation packages can be submitted in either paper or electronic format.”

CAG is a missed opportunity. Of the myriad problems with our current FISMA regime a lot of good could be achieved. The problems with guidance have many causes but can be addressed through cooperative development of best practices outside of NIST. The Assessment Cases for SP 800-53A is an example of how cooperative development can achieve great results and provide clear guidance. Other problems exist and can be addressed with better training and community developments.

My hope is that the Consensus Audit Guidelines will move towards a more open, collaborative development environment. The first release is sure to deliver useful security controls against penetration attacks. As with all good security practices it will likely need to go through a few iterations and lots of critical assessment to mature. An open environment would help foster a more complete consensus.

Consensus photo by mugley.

• Clouds of CAG Confusion
• A Funny Thing Happened Last Week on Capital Hill
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• When Standards Aren’t Good Enough
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

The accreditation decision is one of the most key activities in how the US Government secures its systems. It’s also one of the most misunderstood activities. This slideshow aims to explain the role of the Authorizing Official and to give you some understanding into why and how accreditation decisions are made.

I would like to give a big thanks to Joe Faraone and Graydon McKee who helped out.

The presentation is licensed under Creative Commons, so feel free to download it, email it, and use it in your own training.

• Your Friendly Neighborhood C&A Podcast Panel
• Certification and Accreditation Seminar, March 30th and 31st
• Building A Modern Security Policy For Social Media and Government
• DojoCon 2009 Presentation
• Massively Scaled Security Solutions for Massively Scaled IT

Interesting article in Security Focus on President Obama and cybersecurity.  Yes, I complained on twitter because the “document on homeland security” is not really any kind of a solution, more like a bullet list of goals that sound suspiciously like a warmed-over campaign platform.

Guess what?  Every President does this, they put out their agenda for everyone to see.  With the last administration, it was the 5-point President’s Management Agenda.

Let’s be honest here, as Bubba the Infantryman would say, “There are only a couple of ways to suck an egg, and this egg has been around for a long time.”  Any cybersecurity strategy will harken back to the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace because the problems are the same.  If you remember back to when the NStSC was first released, a horde of critics appeared out of the woodwork to say that there wasn’t enough implementation details and that the strategy wouldn’t be implemented because of that.  Well, they were partly right.

And now there’s the President stating his agenda with the same ideas that people have been saying for 6 years in more detail than what and suddenly it’s new and innovative.  That’s politics for you, folks.  =)  Bubba, in a rare fit of wisdom would say “The way you can tell the true pioneers is that they have arrows sticking out of their backs” and it might seem apropos here, if maybe a little bit cynical.

Hidden Agenda Eats Agenda photo by emme-dk.

Let’s go through each of the points with a little bit of analysis from myself:

Great idea.   Between OMB, NIST, DHS, DoD, DOJ, and a cast of thousands, there is a huge turf war over who really owns security.  Each of these groups do a phenomenal job doing what it is they do, but coordination between them is sometimes more like a semi-anarchist commune than a grand unified effort.  I seem to remember saying at one point that this was needed.  Granted, I was specifically talking about the internal side of the InfoSec Equitites Issue, so the scope here is a little different.

The Cyber Czar is literally buried deep down inside DHS with no real authority, a presidential advisor like is in the agenda would report directly to the President. 

We have a very good R&D plan in place (.pdf caveat), it just needs to be adopted and better funded.  For those of you who need a project, this is like a wishlist on things that some very smart Government guys are willing to fund.

Ouch, I cringe when I read this one.  Not that it’s needed because when it really comes down to it, every CISO in the US is dependent on the software and hardware vendors and their service providers.

Something the world outside the Beltway doesn’t understand is that “standards” are roughly equal to “regulation”.  It’s much, much better if the Government goes to industry groups and says “hey, we want these things to be part of a standard, can you guys work to put it all together?” There might be some regulation that is needed but it should be kept as small as possible.  Where the Government can help is to sponsor some of the standards and work along with industry to help define standards.

Maybe the best model for this is the age-old “lead the horse to water, demonstrate to the horse how to drink, hold the horses mouth in the water, and you still can’t get them to drink.”  We’ve tried this model for a couple of years, what is needed now is some kind of incentive for the horse to drink and for vendors to secure their hardware, software, firmware, and service offerings.

Maybe this gets down to political beliefs, but I don’t think this is the Government’s responsibility to prevent corporate cyber-espionage, nor should you as a company allow the Government to dictate how you harden your desktops or  where you put your IDS.  If you are not smart enough to be in one of these high-tech industries, you should be smart enough to keep your trade secrets from going offshore, or else you’ll die like some weird brand of corporate darwinism.

Government can prosecute evildoers and coordinate with other countries for enforcement efforts, which is exactly what you would expect their level of involvement to be.

Yes, in some cases when it’s cyber-espionage directed at the Government by hacking contractors or suppliers (the military-industrial complex), then Government can do something about it with trickle-down standards in contracts, and they usually do.  Think ITAR export controls scoped to a multi-national corporation and you have a pretty good idea of what the future will hold.

This point is interesting to me.  We already have rules to flag large transactions or multiple transactions, that’s how Elliot Spitzer got caught.  Untraceable Internet payment schemes sounds like pulp-fiction stuff and income tax tracking to me, I would like to know if they really exist.

On the other hand, law enforcement does need training.  There really is a shortage of people with the law enforcement and technical security backgrounds who can do investigations.

National data breach law == good, because it standardizes all of the state laws that are such a hodge-podge you need a full-time staff dedicated to breaking down incidents by jursidiction.  We have something like this proposed, it’s S.459 which just needs to be resurrected and supported by the Executive Branch as part of their agenda.

A common standard could be good as long as it’s done right (industry standards v/s Government regulation), see my comments above.

Note some key points I want you to take away:

Nothing is new under the sun.  These problems have been around a long time, they won’t go away in the next 4 years.  We have to build on the work of people who have come before us because we know they’ve looked at the problem and came to the same conclusions we will eventually come to.

Partnership is emphasized.  This is because as much lip-service we give to the Government solving our problems, the American Way (TM) is for the Government not to be your Internet Nanny.  Government can set the environment to support private information security efforts but it really is up to the individual companies to protect themselves.

Industry needs to solve its own problems.  If you want the Government to solve the nation’s information security problems, it means that we take US-CERT and have them monitor everything whether you want them to or not.  Yes, that’s where things are heading, folks, and maybe I just spilled the beans on some uber-secret plan that I don’t know about yet.  Trust me, you don’t want the transparency that the Government watching your data would provide.

Be careful what you ask for.  You just might get it.  When it comes to IT security, be extra careful because you’ll end up with regulation which means more auditors.

Agenda Grafitti photo by anarchosyn.

• Beware the Cyber-Katrina!
• Cyber Security coming to a boil
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 3
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 4
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 1

Note the emphasis on good.  Note the emphasis on public policy.

Yes, folks, we need good policy people.  Think about the state of security and public policy today:

• We have FISMA which is a law.  Everybody’s whipping boy but it’s exactly where it needs to be to have risk-based management of IT security.
• We have a framework for implementing FISMA.  It’s a pretty good set of process, policy, and standards that have spilled over into the private sector.
• You need a crowbar to get good/smart security people to deal with politics, it takes a death ray to get them to deal with public policy.
• We don’t have high-level policy-makers who understand risk management and they are co-opting the model of compliance.
• Public policy is the upstream neighbor of information security and what public policy people do influences what we do.
• If we want to succeed in security at the operational and tactical level, we need to have the right decisions made at the strategic level, and that includes public policy.
• I’m not just talking about security and the Government, this is also with things like breach laws; compliance frameworks (PCI, HIPAA); and how unpatched and zombified desktops hurt everybody else.

So in true Guerilla CISO style, I’m doing something about it.  Armed with my favorite govie (who is actually the lead on this, I’m just a straphanger), The New School of Information Security (Hi Adam and Andrew), some government policy directives, and the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, I am teaching an Information Security Management and Public Policy class for Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz School.

The more I work with the Masters of Science in Public Policy Management program, the more I’m sold on it.  Basically the students do a year on-campus in Pittsburg, then they have the option of staying there or coming to DC.  The students who come to DC work a 32-hour week (some do more), 2 night classes, and class for most of Friday.  Our information security class fits in as a sector-specific deep-dive, the other one being healthcare (which needs smart public policy people, too).

Which is where we need some help.  It’s a little behind the game, but we’re constantly looking for Government agencies, NGOs/NPOs, and contractors who are interested in taking on interns.  Even better if you have jobs that don’t have a US citizenship requirement.  If you want to be linked up, just drop me a line.

And oh yeah, my blogging has slowed down because I’m working 2 new projects and traveling to Tennessee and teaching Thursday nights and my life just got way busy.  =)

Alexander Hamilton Statue photo by dbking.

• Comments on SCAP 2008
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• Next Up in Security Legislation: S3474
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 1
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

I’ve seen the scenario about a dozen times in the last 2 months–contractors and service providers of all sorts responding to the Government’s security requirements in the middle of a contract.  It’s almost reached the stage where I have it programmed as a “battle drill” ala the infantryman’s Battle Drill 1A, and I’m here to share the secret of negotiating these things.

Let’s see, without naming names, let’s look at where I’ve seen this come up:

• Non-Government Organizations that assist the Government with para-Government services to the citizens
• Companies doing research and development funded by the Government–health care and military
• Universities who do joint research with the Government
• Anybody who runs something that the Government has designated as “critical infrastructure”
• State and local governments who use Federal Government data for their social plans (unemployment system, food stamps, and ) and homeland security-esque activities (law enforcement, disaster response)
• Health Care Providers who service Government insurance plans

For the purposes of this blog post, I’ll refer to all of these groups as contractors or service providers.  Yes, I’m mixing analogies, making huge generalizations, and I’m not precise at all.  However, these groups should all have the same goals and the approach is the same, so bear with me while I lump them all together.

Really, guys, you need to understand both sides of the story because this a cause for negotiations.  I’ll explain why in a minute.

On the Government side:  Well, we have some people we share data with.  It’s not a lot, and it’s sanitized so the value of it is minimal except for the Washington Post Front Page Metric.  Even so, the data is PII that we’ve taken an anonymizer to so that it’s just statistical data that doesn’t directly identify anybody.  We’ve got a pretty good handle on our own IT systems over the past 2 years, so our CISO and IG want us to focus on data that goes outside of our boundaries.  Now I don’t expect/want to “own” the contractor’s IT systems because they provide us a service, not an IT system.  My core problem is that I’m trying to take an existing contract and add security requirements retroactively to it and I’m not sure exactly how to do that.

Our Goals:

• Accomplishing the goals of the program that we provided data to support
• Protection of the data outside of our boundaries
• Proving due-diligence to our 5 layers of oversight that we are doing the best we can to protect the data
• Translating what we need into something the contractor understands
• Being able to provide for the security of Government-owned data at little to no additional cost to the program

On the contractor/service provider side:  We took some data from the Government and now they’re coming out of the blue saying that we need to be FISMA-compliant.  Now I don’t want to sound whiney, but this FISMA thing is a huge undertaking and I’ve heard that for a small business such as ourselves, it can cripple us financially.  While I still want to help the Government add security to our project, I need to at least break even on the security support.  Our core problem is to keep security from impacting our project’s profitability.

Our Goals:

• Accomplishing the goals of the program that we were provided data to support
• Protection of the data given to us to keep the Government happy and continuing to fund us (the spice must flow!)
• Giving something to the Government so that they can demonstrate due-diligence to their auditors and IG
• Translating what we do into something the Government understands
• Keeping the cost of security to an absolute minimum or at least funded for what we do add because it wasn’t scoped into the SOW

Hmm, looks like these goals are very much in alignment with each other.  About the only thing we need to figure out is scope and cost, which sounds very much like a negotiation.

Hardcore Negotiation Skills photo by shinosan.

Little-known facts that might help in our scenario here:

• Section 2.4 of SP 800-53 discusses the use of compensating controls for contractor and service-provider systems.
• One of the concepts in security and the Government is that agencies are to provide “adequate security” for their information and information systems.  Have a look at FISMA and OMB Circular A-130.
• Repeat after me:  “The endstate is to provide a level of protection for the data equivalent or superior to what the Government would provide for that data.”
• Appendix G in SP 800-53 has a traceability matrix through different standards that can serve as a “Rosetta Stone” for understanding each other.  Note to NIST:  let’s throw in PCI-DSS, Sarbanes-Oxley,  and change ISO 17799 to 27001.

So what’s a security geek to do?  Well, this, dear readers, is Rybolov’s 5-fold path to Government/contractor nirvana:

1. Contractor and Government have a kickoff session to meet each other and build raport, starting from a common ground such as how you both have similar goals.  The problem really is one of managing each others’ expectations.
2. Both Government and Contractor perform internal risk assessment to determine what kind of outcome they want to negotiate.
3. Contractor and Government meet a week later to negotiate on security.
4. Contractor provides documentation on what security controls they have in place.  This might be as minimal as a contract with the guard force company at their major sites, or it might be just employee background checks and
5. Contractor and Government negotiate for a 6-month plan-of-action.  For most organizations considering ISO 27001, this is a good time to make a promise to get it done.  For smaller organizations or data , we may not even

Assumptions and dependencies:

• The data we’re talking about is low-criticality or even moderate-criticality.
• This isn’t an outsourced IT system that could be considered government-owned, contractor-operated (GO-CO)

• Imagine that, System Integrators Doing Security Jointly with DoD
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• Random Thoughts on “The FISMA Challenge” in eHealthcare
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”
• Introducing the Government’s Great InfoSec Equities Issue