Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, C&A, DIARMF, ditpr, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, EITDR, emass, federal, FISMA, information assurance, ISSEP, Main Digg, nist, Risk Management Framework, Security Awareness, Security Awareness/ISSA, Security Management, sissu
Risk Management Framework is implemented throughout an organization.
NIST 800-39, Manage Information Security Risk, describes how to implement risk within t three layers (or tiers) of of an organization:
Tier 1: Organization level
Tier 2: Mission/Business Process level
Tier 3: Information System level
Tier 1: Organization Level risk management
Tier one addresses security from the organizations perspective. The activities include the implementation of the first component of risk management, risk framing. Risk framing provides context of all the risk activities within an organization, which affects the risk activities of tier 1 & 2. The output of risk framing is Risk Management Strategy. In tier 1 the organization establishes and implements governance structure that are in compliance with laws, regulations and policies. Tier 1 activities include establishment of the Risk Executive Function, establishment of the risk management strategy and determination of the risk tolerance.
Tier 2: Mission/Business Process Level risk management
Tier 2 risk management activities include: 1) defining the mission/business processes to support the organization. 2) Prioritize the mission/business process with respect to the long term goals of the organization. 3) Define the type of information needed to successfully execute the mission/business processes, criticality/sensitivity of the information and the information flows both internal and external of the information.
Having a risk-aware process is an important part of tier 2. To be risk-aware senior leaders/executives need to know: 1) types of threat sources and threat events that could have an adverse affect the ability of the organizations 2) the potential adverse impacts on the organizational operations and assets, individuals, the Nation if confidentiality, integrity, availability is compromised 3) the organization�s resilience to such an attack that can be achieved with a given mission/business process
Tier 3: Information System risk management
From the information system perspective, tier 3 addresses the following tasks:
1) Categorization of the information system
2) Allocating the organizational security control
3) Selection, implementation, assessment, authorization, and ongoing
Chapter 3 focuses on the step to have a comprehensive risk management program. The tasks discussed include:
For more information go to: http://elamb.org/training-certification800-39-manage-information-security-risks/
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, C&A, Certification, DIARMF, ditpr, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, EITDR, emass, federal, FISMA, information assurance, ISSEP, Main Digg, Risk Management Framework, security
DIACAP to DIARMF: Assessment Authorization
With the move from certification and accreditation (C&A) to risk management framework, comes a few new terms. “C&A” will be replaced with assessment and authorization. Even though “information assurance (IA) controls” will be call “security controls”, the definition and work is still the same, but the hope is that its done continuously and more cost-effective.
Certification (NIST Assessment) – Comprehensive evaluation of an information system assessment of IA Controls/Security Controls to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly and operating as intended. That means when evaluated, they produce the desired outcome. An assessment is about gathering information to providing the factual basis for an authorizing official (Designated Accrediting Authority) to render a security accreditation decision
Accreditation (NIST Authorization) – Security accreditation is the official management decision to operate (DAA – Formal approval of the system). Authorization is given by a senior agency official (upper-management/higher head quarters/combat commander). The official should have the authority to oversee the budget and business operations of the information system explicitly accept the risk to operations, assets, individuals. They accept responsibility for the security of the system and are fully accountable for the security of the system.
“The official management decision given by a senior organization“The official management decision given by a senior organizational official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to organizational operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls.”
– NIST SP 800-37 rev 1
March 14, 2014, UPDATE RMF – DoD IT:
DIARMF will be known as Risk Management Framework for DoD IT.
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, C&A, Computer Security, DIARMF, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, EITDR, FISMA, information assurance, ISSEP, Main Digg, nist, NR-KPP, Risk Management Framework, security, Security Awareness, Security Awareness/ISSA, Security Management
DIACAP to DIARMF: Intro
image of diacap to rmf
DoD Chief Information Officer (formerly Assistant Security Defense), in collaboration with the Department of the Navy CIO, has developed a DoDI 8500.2 to NIST SP 800-53 IA control mapping (2010). More DIACAP Knowledge Service.
DIACAP Knowledge Service
On the DIACAP Knowledge Service goto “C&A Transformation”. This page introduces some of the coming changes from Certification & Accreditation changes to the Risk Management Framework seen in NIST SP 800-37.
DIACAP has “Risk Management Framework Transformation Initiative” underway that provides information on use of NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-37, CNSS Instruction 1253.
The site introduces changes being made to DoDD 8500.01, DoDI 8500.2, DoDI 8510.01 and other documents that will be aligned with NIST 800 and FISMA 2013. They will feature an attempt to keep up with new arising cyberthreats, vulnerabilites and security incidence using real-time, “continuous monitoring” technologies such as HP ArcSight, McAfee ESM, ePO, NSP, Retina, Nessuss and other near real-time active monitoring systems.
road to diarmf
Why DIACAP to DIARMF?
Federal government has gotten more serious about security. They realize that enterprise level security and process is a continuous and expensive business. The old certification & accreditation process is not only long and expensive but so slow that it cannot keep up with the constant changes of information technology.
Risk based/cost effective security means creating security systems and policies that focus on “adequate security”. The Executive Branch Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines as adequate security, or security commensurate with risk, to include the magnitude of harm resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information. The feds are also attempting to make the process of implementing and evaluating security controls by creating as much paper-less automation as possible.
note IMHO: Since technology is changing at a rate of what Ray Kurzweil calls “accelerating returns” I think for governments and organizations stuck in “static policy” based systems there is no way they can ever keep up with information technology without revolutionary shift in thinking. Google is probably the closest to understanding what is actually happening. The best any of us can do is observe.
Source documents for all U.S. Federal information security:
OMB A-130 – Management of Federal Information Resources
FISMA – Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA, 44 U.S.C. § 3541) enacted as Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347)
Required for all government agencies to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide information security program to provide information security for the information and systems that support the operations and assets of the agency Applies to contractors and other sources.
The federal government has created various acts/laws to implement to changes to the C&A process to a more risk management approach and emphasize a risk-based policy for cost-effective security. These acts include (but are not limited to):
- Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (amended as of 2013 April)
- The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
- The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Clinger-Cohen Act) supported by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through Circular A-130, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, C&A, Computer Security, DIARMF, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, EITDR, FISMA, Main Digg, nist, Risk Management Framework, security, Security Awareness, Security Awareness/ISSA
Who Creates and/or Manages the NIST 800?
This NIST 800 is a well thought out set of federal security standards that DoD and the Intel world is moving too. It aligns with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electotechnical Commissions (IEC) 27001:2005, Information Security Management System (ISMS).
NIST 800 is updated and revised by the following organizations:
Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative Interagency (JTFTI) Working Group National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
JTFTI is made up of from the Civil, Defense, and Intelligence Communities. This working group reviews and updates the following documents
- NIST Special Publication 800-37, Revision 1 Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems: A Security Life Cycle Approach
- NIST Special Publication 800-39, Enterprise-Wide Risk Management: Organization, Mission, and Information Systems View
- NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3 Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations
- NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Revision 1 Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Building Effective Assessment Plans
These core documents are a standard on how to implement FISMA. The organization has done a good job of keeping NIST 800 inline with international standards of ISO 27001. The JTFTI is made up of ODNI, DoD, CNSS. This document is also publicly vetted.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
The DNI is a position required by Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This office serves as adviser to the president, Homeland Security and National Security Counsil as well and director of National Intelligence.
Department of Defense (DoD)
DoD is composed of (but not limited to) the USAF, US Army, DON and Marines. It is the most powerful military organization in recorded history.
Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS)
This committee was created to satisfy National Security Directive 42, “National Policy for the Security of National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems“,
the group has represtatives from NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, DOJ, DIA and is focused on protecting the US crititcal infrastructure.
Public (review and vetting) – the draft is posted online on NIST.gov
Scadahacker – mappings NIST to International
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, C&A, DIARMF, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, FISMA, information assurance, ISSEP, Main Digg, nist, Risk Management Framework, System security engineering
DIACAP is transitioning from a Certification and Accreditation to a Risk Management Framework. Most of the new Risk Manager Framework is in the NIST Special Publication 800-37. The old NIST SP 800-37 was also based on Certification and Accreditation. After FISMA 2002, it adjusted to a Risk Management Framework in NIST SP 800-37 Rev 1, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems.
NIST SP 800-37 to SP 800-37 rev 1 transformed from a Certification and Accreditation (C&A) process into the six-step Risk Management Framework (RMF). The changes included:
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, C&A, DoD Risk Management Framework, DoD RMF, EITDR, FISMA, information assurance, Internet and Information Technology Security, ISSEP
- Revised process emphasizes
- Building information security capabilities into federal information systems through the application of state-of-the-practice management, operational, and technical security controls
- Maintaining awareness of the security state of information systems on an ongoing basis though enhanced monitoring processes
- Providing essential information to senior leaders to facilitate decisions regarding the acceptance of risk to organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation arising from the operation and use of information systems
The Federal Information Security Amendments Act, H.R. 1163, Amends the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).
Main Points of FISMA 2002:
- Cost-effectively reduce information technology security risks
- Vulnerability Database System
- Maintain an inventory of major information systems
- Security Categorization of Federal IS by risk levels
- Minimum security requirements
- System Security planning process
- Annual review of assigned IS compliance
- Risk Management
The amendment has a few big changes to the previous 2002 version that will affect federal agencies. But two main ones the stood out for me is the emphasis on automation and the CISO position.
The FISMA Amendment was passed by the House of Representatives (4 April 2013) but must still pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President.
1 – Continuous monitoring / automation of Everything -FISMA 2013, requires continuous monitoring (automation) and regular cyberthreat assessments for better oversight to federal organizations.
Security Incidents – Security incidents are automatically detected with tools like McAfee Network Security Platform (IPS), Source Fire SNORT (IDS), McAfee ePO and Cisco IDS. With the right people to manage the signatures and the configuration, theses are great products. Once they are detected you can then do incident handling with something like Remedy. FISMA 2013: “with a frequency sufficient to support risk-based security decisions, automated and continuous monitoring, when possible, for detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents, consistent with standards and guidelines issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology”
Information Systems Security – Vulnerability scanners such as Retina and Tenable’s Nessuss are great with automatically detecting security controls and policies within an agency. Change Auditor and other tools can detect changes the GPO’s within a domain. FISMA 2013: “with a frequency sufficient to support risk-based security decisions, automated and continuous monitoring, when possible, for testing and evaluation of the effectiveness and compliance of information security policies, procedures, and practices, including…” Security controls
Risk Level & Impact of Harm – McAfee ESM and ArcSight are good and pulling in the data from security tools that detect security events, evaluating the risk level and giving an measurement of the possible harm of and asset. FISMA 2013: “automated and continuous monitoring, when possible, of the risk and magnitude of the harm that could result from the disruption or unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction of information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency;
Detection/Correlation – this one could be grouped in with Security Incident, but Security Incident gets more into incident handling. Also, ArcSight, McAfee, LogRythm, LogLogic, AlienVault and other Security Incident Event Managers do Correlation automatically. FISMA 2013: “efficiently detect, correlate, respond to, contain, mitigate, and remediate incidents that impair the adequate security of the information systems of more than one agency. To the extent practicable, the capability shall be continuous and technically automated.”
2 – CISO positions and responsibilities backed by Law – The amendment requires each department head to be held accountable for IT. In DoD Information Assurance Risk Management Framework (DIARMF) this department director is known as the Authorizing Official (aka Designated Authorizing Authority in DIACAP). FISMA 2013 require the AO to have an Chief Information Security Officer. This is a position that is already assigned under Risk Management Framework. The DoD has referred to this position as Senior Information Assurance Officer in DIACAP. Under FISMA 2013, CISO/SIAO must have must have qualifications to implement agency-wide security programs for which they are responsible
and report directly to the AO.
The CISCO/SIAO will also have responsibility of Automated Security systems. The CISO will be responsible for development, maintaining and overseeing these automated systems.
FISMA 2013 is targeted to minimize the risk of cyberattacks by conducting pentesting.
Overall, they made automation a requirement, which is the direction the field of information security has already been following and put some more emphasis on the CISO. The amendments highlight the changes from DIACAP to DIARMF as many of the changes are already in the NIST 800 series that DIARMF is based on.
Got this message today on CAP domain changes.. Not much changed:
On September 1, 2013, (ISC)²® will implement certain domain-related changes for the Certified Authorization Professional (CAP®) credential exam. These will be the new domains you will need to select when submitting CPE credits for your CAP certification.
These domain changes are being implemented based on the outcome of the Job Task Analysis (JTA) completed in late 2012. The JTA provides the essential foundation for all of (ISC)²’s credential exams. Under general circumstances, changes due to a new JTA study are incremental, so addition or deletion of Domains does not occur normally.
courtesy of gabfirethemes
Current CAP Domains:
1. Understand the Security Authorization of Information Systems
2. Categorize Information Systems
3. Establish the Security Control Baseline
4. Apply Security Controls
5. Assess Security Controls
6. Authorize Information System
7. Monitor Security Controls
Effective September 1, 2013 CAP Domains:
1. Risk Management Framework (RMF)
2. Categorization of Information Systems
3. Selection of Security Controls
4. Security Control Implementation
5. Security Control Assessment
6. Information System Authorization
7. Monitoring of Security Controls
DHS, DIGG, federal, FIPS, FISMA, freedom, google, Main Digg, Patiot Act, security, Security Awareness, Security Management
DISCLAIMER: I have no first hand knowledge of the NSA PRISM program. This is just my personal opinion of Edward Swowden’s release of classified information and the impacts.
What is PRISM:
PRISM is the code name for the data collection program which was born out of the Protect America Act.
Recently Mr. Edward Snowden released classified information to the international media and fled the U.S. He was working on the PRISM program and felt that the right thing to do was to tell U.S. citizens about their loss of privacy.
SHH!! Don’t tell anybody this.. but privacy has BEEN gone if you are on Facebook, Google or any other social network. These organization are storing our private data. But what do these organizations do with that data?
- Do they try to protect your data?
- Do they sometime release it to third parties?
- Can certain data you store on their system be used against you in a court of law?
- All of the Above 🙂
Encrypt your data. That is the only real way to have privacy to a trusted party. Don’t use FB or Google for stuff you want hidden.
The Need for Some Sort of PRISM:
Spies get a very very bad rap lately. Analysts are unsung heros. It that world nothing is what it seems. The media presents one side of everything. You have to dig and cross reference to get facts. Intelligence provides a proactive answer to security. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has done security defensively. There is a need for gathering data within the U.S. infrastructure. Once data is gathered, it can be correlated to detect patterns of potential threats.
So I think we MUST have something like PRISM (especially in the US) due to the exposure of our assets and the subsequent likelihood of attack. We have a high risk. And the greatest risk is from INSIDERS (ironically enough PRISM cannot protect itself).
There are three main issues with the programs current setup:
1. Lack of Oversight & Transparency: There seems to be very little transparency and oversight that represents US citizens regarding privacy and controlling how far the government can go. US Senators are led away from what is really going on.
2. Total Information Awareness: This system may be too DAMN powerful as far as what it is capable of. In fact, it seems to be like using GOD Mode 24/7 to gather information. Snowden mentioned that it can track ANY email.. is this on a whim? does there need to be some sort of probable cause or “reason to believe” or is this left to the discretion of the guy with his finger on the button.. this leads to the next issue..
3. The Patriot Act II + Protect America Act = Its too DAMN politically powerful. This program has the legal backing to do anything with NO checks and balances.
Is SNOWDEN A HERO?
Would I call Snowden/Manning heros/martyrs? I would not group Snowden with Manning. The information that Snowden released (so far) is showing a the capability of NSA spying (something that was done by whistle blower William Binney in 2002). PVT First Class Bradley Manning leaked a lot of war material that risked a lot of people’s lives:
videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. It was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
The problem with this is that it actually endangered the lives of informants, and some people that were on the ground in Afghan/Iraq. Manning fucked up big time. Snowden is a hacktivist who will have to spend sometime in prison or in Iceland evading the US government unless the American public rallies to sway the politicians.
My hope is that there is due care taken on this issue. Because there is a real concern regarding the Constitution, Privacy and uncheck powers of the government. If not, perhaps the next administration will take up the call of the people. Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 has a Whistleblower Protection Act that would be helpful if such a law could apply to Snowden. I am not so sure about that.
Transparency & Accountability
I know their needs to be transparency and accountability. But I think its naive to think that we should release all information on all classified data to the world as the Wikileaks crowd believes.
Organizations & States have an obligation to maintain Confidentiality of critical data.
That means databases with witness protection programs must be kept Confidential, bank transactions must be protected..
Nations have some serious enemies (ESPECIALLY the US). The US governments duty is to protect its people from those enemies (foreign or domestic).
Consider this: Certain information on the physical/logical locations of weapons systems, pattens on lethal biochemicals, information on the capabilities of a nation are very effective tools in the hands of really bad people.
Its naive to think that opening up all classified data is going to set the world free. I wish humanity was in a kinder, gentler situation.. but the reality is some crazy people want to kill as many people as possible.
Yes! I agree that governments with unrestricted power can be MUCH more dangerous. Some transparency with check and balances are necessary.
WAR OF INFORMATION
The post modern
war conflict is a fight over ideology. Its less about my nation versus your nation and more and more about belief systems.
RIGHT NOW there is someone with the intent to kill as many people as possible. With the capability and opportunity they would strike. There IS an enemy and they are anywhere and everywhere. You can no longer point at a map and say “All these people are my enemy.”
Now there is an enemy willing to kill you over what you believe, what you represent and what they think you are. And more than likely, THEY are living in your city. Who are “THEY”?
Figuring out who THEY are.. is where data mining and correlation comes in.
The threat-source can be from ANY country, race, creed, or religious faction. They are more and more likely to have a citizenship in your country for the sake of having free reign to make the most damage on the most people that represent what they seek to destroy.
Its sounds crazy until a bomb goes off in the middle of a Boston Marathon with the attackers on their way to Time Square. Luckily, there was surveillance to help deter further killings.
How do we fight against these threats?
Threats can be detected via patterns within information.
Solution: The government should allow the program manager of the system to explain why its necessary, provide proof of its usefulness. Limit the use and extent of PRISMs power.
I hope the president will listen to the Internet community on this. I hope that some political party will hear the cries of thousands of potential constituents then take an intelligent look at the public’s concerns. Realistically, the American public voted on the reps that backed the laws that created this system. They accepted it by proxy. But the shock is from the alleged reach of this program. Its too bad it took Snowden is risking years away from home and possibly prison for the US to wake up and start talking about something that was leaked years ago.
Assurance, Assurance/DIACAP, Assurance/DITSCAP, Assurance/Netcentric, Assurance/SSAA, EITDR, emass, FISMA, information assurance, Main Digg, security, sissu
UPDAT: 2014 – Risk Management Framework for DOD IT released.
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)
Feds call Certification &Accreditation (C&A) “Security authorization”
NIST SP 800-37
Validator Activities & Issue Accreditation Decision
Make certification determination
CA/DAA Package review
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