SRR Findings to IA Controls

From Reader:

I stumbled upon your site and am new to security working for a contractor. I’m attempting to complete a DIACAP POA&M and need to map SRR findings to IA controls – any idea where I might find this information?

The SRR finding reference the DOD Unix STIG and NIPR STIG. It doesn’t seem to completely match up the the DIACAP IA Controls, but that is where a good system security engineer/ IA analyst comes in.

Once you’ve got your SRR results, IA Control compliance and mitigation depends on your situation. There are a few that map directly (like Screen Saver) but most of the SRR findings will fall under one or two of the IA Controls.

Hope this helps.

Popularity: 2% [?]

CNSSI 12-53: New Security Control Catalog for National Security Systems

New DIACAP Certification & Accreditation IA Controls

The DoD has had the same IA controls since DoD 8510.1-M, controls since DoD 8510.1-M, Department of Defense Information Technology System Certification & Accreditation Process (DITSCAP), July 31, 2000 – it was developed late last century.

The DoD has a total of 157 IA controls spread across 8 subject areas in 4 classes:

DC – Security Design & Configuration

IA – Identification and Authentication

EC – Enclave & Computing

EB – Enclave Boundary Defense

PE – Physical & Environmental

PR – Personnel

CO – Continuity

VI – Vulnerability

There is a huge change coming in certification & accreditation for the DoD coming. The IA controls are being expanded and changed. The last two DIACAP classes I’ve been to mentioned that there is a big change coming. Essentially, all the IA Controls (security controls, safeguards, countermeasures.. whatever your organization is calling them) are getting expanded. All federal organizations will have security controls that look more like what is in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53. This is all being placed in the Committee on National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253. As of 25 June 2009, the CNSSI 1253 is still in draft.

The draft has 17 families & identifiers in three security control classes.

TABLE 1: SECURITY CONTROL CLASSES, FAMILIES, AND IDENTIFIERS
IDENTIFIER FAMILY CLASS

AC Access Control Technical

AT Awareness and Training Operational

AU Audit and Accountability Technical

CA Certification, Accreditation, and Security Assessments Management

CM Configuration Management Operational

CP Contingency Planning Operational

IA Identification and Authentication Technical

IR Incident Response Operational

MA Maintenance Operational

MP Media Protection Operational

PE Physical and Environmental Protection Operational

PL Planning Management

PS Personnel Security Operational

RA Risk Assessment Management

SA System and Services Acquisition Management

SC System and Communications Protection Technical

The CNSSI has about 500 controls with pretty good granularity.

One of the really cool thing about 1253 was the security control mapping. It’s a table that matches up 800-53, DCID 6/3 and DODI 8500.2.

Popularity: 4% [?]

DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation Training (part 4): DIACAP/AFCAP Day 4 & 5

Days 4 & 5 bring the DIACAP/AFCAP Essentials Class to a close. The
biggest things I learned were: CNSSI 4009 is the the official glossary of DOD IA, there is a big difference between theory, policy and practice, Agents of the Certifying Authority (ACA) are official validators and there is a difference between acquisition Mission criticality and IA MAC levels.

Stuff I learned from people in the class:

-AFCA is changing its name (to what?)

DOD is going to put the new IA controls in NCSSI 12-53 (currently in draft)

-a lot of what I need in there is in NIST 800-53

Marines use something called Exacta

Site called securitycritics.org

33-202 is now completely irrelevant and obsolete (not even mentioned ONCE in the class)

800-30

Feds call Certification &Accreditation (C&A) “Security authorization”

NIST SP 800-37

Day 4:

Validator Activities & Issue Accreditation Decision

Prepare POA&M

Validate Results/Scorecard

Scorecard

Make certification determination

CA/DAA Package review

Day 5:

Validation procedures were discussed. On day five, we looked at how the validators look at a system.

I thought is was interesting. It should help me get through the EITDR/DIACAP process easier.

Maintain Situational Awareness

Maintain IA Posture

Conduct Review

R-Accreditation

Retire system

Popularity: 4% [?]

DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation Training (part 4): DIACAP/AFCAP Day3

Day 3 heats up a little. We start talking about what it take to actually get validated. The DIACAP Implementers Guide & the DIACAP Validators guide is opened up and reviewed. I think we all learned a little something during this discussion because there have been some challenges with this. Unfortunately, we don’t to far into the validator stuff.

Day 3:

DIACAP Structure

Terminology Review

Assemble DIACAP Team

Registered System/System Information Profile

Assign IA Controls

Initiate DIACAP Implementation Plan

Popularity: 3% [?]

DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation Training (part 3): DIACAP/AFCAP Day2

Day 1 & 2 have been all about the very basics of DIACAP. Were introduced to the terminologies, key players of the C&A process and basically given the big picture. Like I said, GREAT for beginners, but just lots of theory and refresher if you’ve been doing C&A since DITSCAP.

Day 1 &2:

Getting the Big Picture

DIACAP/AFCAP Policy & Terminology

Roles and Responsibilities for the C&A process

Accreditation & Approval to Connect

Homework: review terminology

In between longer breaks, during lunch and just before class we sneak in episode of the The IT Crowd. Its the first time I’ve watched it so its a real treat for me. Hilarious show.

Popularity: 3% [?]

DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation Training (part 2): DIACAP/AFCAP Day1

DIACAP/AFCAP Day 1.
This is the second installment of the DIACAP Essentials journal.

In the first day of class we’ve taken a high level look at the big picture of the Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification & Accreditation Process (DIACAP) and Air Force Certification & Accreditation Program (AFCAP). It is a very valuable tool for a beginner.

Since I’ve gone through the entire process (with a legacy system) more than once through all the growing pains of Air Force C&A from DITSCAP to DIACAP, I found that I knew about 90% of everything taught. I don’t mind having a refresher, though and quite frankly, I need the CPE’s for my CISSP .

There were a couple of golden nuggets that I’ve been able to get out of some of the old timers. I learned some interesting things about how the Navy, Marines and Army do things.
Navy (as weird as their dumb ass rank system.. yep, I said it.. its dumb) have like three systems: DITPR-DON, DA-DUMB and some other BS, Marines have something called Exacta and the Army has APMS (Army Profile Management System). Also learned cool off topic stuff like history of eMass.

I must admit I’m looking forward to day two.
pros of day 1: Good solid start on basics GREAT for beginners. SecureInfo gets mad props for have a great instructor John M.(don’t know if he wants his full name published.. but he’s highly, highly knowledgeable and very positive).

cons of day 1: Right off the bat I am noticing a huge hole in the training… a lack of in depth teaching of EITDR, which is how the Air Force implements, manages and maintains the entire DIACAP/AFCAP process. I don’t really see how you can teach one without the other these days. I guess contractually, SecureInfo can not touch it since some other company has the contract. But unfortunately, the folks that are new to this are going to suffer. Because if they goto this class without knowing the EITDR they will know why but now how, and if they go to the EITDR class without knowing the DIACAP they will know how but not Why.

Popularity: 5% [?]

DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation Training (part 1)

I’ve been scheduled to go to DIACAP Essentials + IA Control Validation training. It is the same training that is given to validators at AFCA, so I guess it is pretty serious stuff. I was very reluctant to go until I realized that I actually really need the CPE’s to maintain my CISSP.

Since I’ve been doing the DIACAP stuff for about 2 years now, I’m not certain there is any new information for me to learn.

DIACAP Essentials
The Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and
Accreditation Process (DIACAP) Essentials course blends lecture and hands-on
exercises to introduce students to DIACAP policy (to include FISMA
requirements of a comprehensive, repeatable, and auditable Information
Security process).

IA Control Validation In-Depth - 3 Days
The IA Control Validation In-Depth course takes the students DIACAP
education and turns the view from an implementor to a Validator perspective
and involves the students in the validation process for the IA Controls
(DoDI 8500.2).

What I am hoping to get from the course is a better handle on the FISMA process.
I don’t feel like I really have a handle on what is supposed to happen with it.

Popularity: 5% [?]

New Certification & Accreditation Process (Rumor)

One C&A package to rule them all?

The federal government has a bunch of Certification & Accreditation processes. There is Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification & Accreditation (DIACAP) for the DOD, there’s Director of Central intelligence Directive (DCID) 6/3 for certain classified systems, there is National Information Assurance Certification & Accreditation (NIACAP) for National Security Systems. And under each of these their processes differ according the branch, leadership, organization and/or mission. Each process, organization, branch and mission has a different set of resources that they pull from. DIACAP pertains to military branches and pulls from the DoD 8500 series, many other federal agencies use National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-xx series.

Each agency, organization and/or branch uses their own methods and everyone is happy. The only problem is when a system gets exploited. When it happens there is mass panic and they realize that there are massive holes in the process.

Rumors and Trends

There have been rumors floating around about many of these federal C&A processes merging into one. At their core they are actually pretty similar. Take NIST SP 800-37, C&A of Federal Information Systems and DOD 8510, DIACAP for example. Both have an initial phase where data is gathered on the system and all parties involved with a system are pulled together (see table. 1 for more similarities).

style='border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in;border-width:
initial;border-color:initial'>

Federal C&A Process	Phases	Activities
SP 800-37	Initiation Phase	Gather data, get agreement of all stake holders
DIACAP	Initiate & Plan IA C&A
SP 800-37	Security Certification Phase	IA Control Assessment and agreement
DIACAP	Implement & Validate Assigned IA Controls
SP 800-37	Security Accreditation Phase	Security implementation and assessment
DIACAP	Make Cert. Determination & Accreditation Decision
DP 800-37	Continuous Monitoring Phase	Configuration management; FISMA reporting; sustainment
DIACAP	Maintain Authorization to Operate
DIACAP	Decommission	Retire System

12-37?

Popularity: 8% [?]

DIACAP Activity #4 Maintain Authorization to Operate and Conduct Review

Maintain Situational AwarenessIncluded in the IA controls assigned to all DoD ISs are IA controls related to configuration and vulnerability management, performance monitoring, and periodic independent evaluations (e.g., penetration testing). The IAM continuously monitors the system or information environment for security-relevant events and configuration changes that negatively impact IA posture and periodically assesses the quality of IA controls implementation against performance indicators such as security incidents, feedback from external inspection agencies (e.g., IG DoD, Government Accountability Office (GAO)), exercises, and operational evaluations. In addition the IAM may, independently or at the direction of the CA or DAA, schedule a revalidation of any or all IA controls at any time. Reference (a) requires revalidation of a select number of IA controls at least annually. (DoD 8510.01, 6.3.4.1)

Knowing what is going on with the system is the job of the Information Assurance Manager (IAM). This can be delegated to the Information Assurance Officer (IAO) or the IAM and IAO may be the same person, but keep in mind that these permission require training, a technical and security certification (IAW DoD 8570).

Maintain IA Posture

Ensuring that there are no changes to the IA posture falls on the shoulders of the IAM.  This includes making sure that the establish baseline of the system has no signifigant changes.  Most patches (even involving security) will have a minimal impact on the system.  Applicable patches should always be tested before being put on a system.  Major patches are usually service packs that may actually change the IA posture.  The DIACAP Team should be involved with any major changes to the IA posture.  They will also decide which modifications, upgrades and additions should be considered changes to the IA posture of the system.  As a minimum, the Program Manager, IAM, subject matter experts (software/system security engineers) and information system owner/user representative should be appart of that decision. 

What will likely be considered a change to the IA Posture:

Adding IA products (firewalls, intrusion detection systems, ect)

Some internetworking devices such as Routers and Switches

New operating systems

Major upgrades to software or operating systems (not including support applications)

Newly discover major vulnerabilities

*Basically any major changes that will affect the security, supportability, usability, and interoperability of the system.  It is important to have who, what when and where of sustainability, new risks, and usability requirements in writing.  Information Assurance includes all these things, not just security.

What are usually not changes to the IA Posture: 

Most NOTAM/IAVAS/TCNOs (such as Office patches, browser upgrades, ect)

Re-positioning equipment within the office (as long as the IAM has readable documentation on the data connections)

Adding passive periferal devices such as stand-alone printers, scanners and new monitors (devices with connectivity to external sources such as faxes, share external network printers should go before the DIACAP Team)

Devices such as DVD, CD and hard drives with more capacity may not affect the IA Posture but it is best to have some formalized method of tracking upgrades to hardware  especially on mission systems as some changes could have some unpredictable affects

Annual FISMA Reviews

DIACAP includes the task of performing reviews annually on the system.  This is one of the key features of the Federal Information System Management Act of 2002.  What ever command or branch of the DoD you reside, your system has the potential of being audited annually to make sure it is in compliance with federal regulations.  The eMASS IT Portfolio management systems (EITDR, DITPR-DON, APMS) also has this feature intergrated into its key functions.  All data on each systems IA posture is collect annually.   This is done by the IAMs and/or the DIACAP Team.

Additionally, each system must be re-accredited every three years:

6.3.4.4. Initiate Reaccreditation. In accordance with OMB Circular A-130 (Reference (s)), an IS must be recertified and reaccredited once every 3 years. The results of an annual review or a major change in the IA posture at any time may also indicate the need for recertification and reaccreditation of the IS.  DoD 8510.01, 6.3.4.4

From DoD 8510.01, DIACAP: 

6.3.4.1.1. DoD ISs with a current ATO that are found to be operating in an unacceptable IA posture through GAO audits, IG DoD audits, or other reviews or events such as an annual security review or compliance validation shall have the newly identified weakness added to an existing or newly created IT Security POA&M.

6.3.4.1.2. If a newly discovered CAT I weakness on a DoD IS operating with an ATO cannot be corrected within 30 days, the system can only continue operation under the terms prescribed in subparagraph 6.3.3.2.6.1.2.

6.3.4.1.3. If a newly discovered CAT II weakness on a DoD IS operating with a current ATO cannot be corrected or satisfactorily mitigated within 90 days, the system can only continue operation under the terms prescribed in subparagraph 6.3.3.2.6.2.5.

6.3.4.2. Maintain IA Posture. The IAM may recommend changes or improvement to the implementation of assigned IA controls, the assignment of additional IA controls, or changes or improvements to the design of the IS itself.

6.3.4.3. Perform Reviews. The IAM shall annually provide a written or DoD PKI-certified digitally signed statement to the DAA and the CA that indicates the results of the security review of all IA controls and the testing of selected IA controls as required by Reference (a). The review will either confirm the effectiveness of assigned IA controls and their implementation, or it will recommend: changes such as those described in subparagraph 6.3.4.2.; a change in accreditation status (e.g., accreditation status is downgraded to IATO or DATO); or development of an IT Security POA&M. The CA and DAA shall review the IAM statement in light of mission and information environment indicators and determine a course of action that will be provided to the concerned CIO or SIAO for reporting requirements described in Reference (a). The date of the annual security review will be recorded in the SIP. A DAA may downgrade or revoke an accreditation decision at any time if risk conditions or concerns so warrant.

6.3.4.4. Initiate Reaccreditation. In accordance with OMB Circular A-130 (Reference (s)), an IS must be recertified and reaccredited once every 3 years. The results of an annual review or a major change in the IA posture at any time may also indicate the need for recertification and reaccreditation of the IS.

Popularity: 14% [?]

ATO and ATC

Difference between DITSCAP and DIACAP ATO:

Although the acronym “ATO” was used in DITSCAP and is now being used in the DIACAP process, the DIACAP ATO is “Authority to Operate” and replaces the DITSCAP “Approval to Operate”. The essential meaning is the same. An ATO is still a statement that marks a formal Accreditation Decision issued by the DAA.

E2.2. Accreditation Decision. A formal statement by a designated accrediting authority (DAA) regarding acceptance of the risk associated with operating a DoD information system (IS) and expressed as an authorization to operate (ATO), interim ATO (IATO), interim authorization to test (IATT), or denial of ATO (DATO). The accreditation decision may be issued in hard copy with a traditional signature or issued electronically signed with a DoD public key infrastructure (PKI)-certified digital signature. (DOD 8510.01)

E2.8. Authorization to Operate (ATO). Authorization granted by a DAA for a DoD IS to process, store, or transmit information. An ATO indicates a DoD IS has adequately implemented all assigned IA controls to the point where residual risk is acceptable to the DAA. ATOs may be issued for up to 3 years. (DOD 8510.01)

E2.19. Designated Accrediting Authority (DAA). The official with the authority to formally assume responsibility for operating a system at an acceptable level of risk. This term is synonymous with designated approving authority and delegated accrediting authority. (Reference (d) leads with the term designated approving authority, which was favored at the time of publication.). (DOD 8510.01)

Connection to the NIPRNet/GIG:

To connect to the Global Information Grid (which includes the NIPRNet/SIPRNet) an Approval To Connect is need.

Authority to Connect (ATC). The ATC defines the customer’s connection boundaries as accepted by the DISN SIPRNET Management and reflects the completion of a successful network vulnerability assessment by the DISA SCAO. CJCSI 6211.02B 31 July 2003

Interim Approval to Connect (IATC). The IATC defines the customer’s connection boundaries as accepted by the DISN SIPRNET Management. CJCSI 6211.02B 31 July 2003

Popularity: 10% [?]

Next Page »