Tag: FISMA

  • diacap to diarmf: C&A vs RMF

    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.

    diacap-to-diarmf-ca-vs-rmf
    diacap-to-diarmf-ca-vs-rmf

    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:

    1. Revised process emphasizes
    2. Building information security capabilities into federal information systems through the application of state-of-the-practice management, operational, and technical security controls
    3. Maintaining awareness of the security state of information systems on an ongoing basis though enhanced monitoring processes
    4. 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
  • diacap to diarmf: FISMA 2013

    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.

    source:
    http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/1163/text

  • Certification & Accreditation Change

    Standard-issue security
    Certification and accreditation process for national security systems to extend to the rest of government. A two-year-old effort to standardize processes for certifying and accrediting government IT systems could soon bear fruit, according to officials from several agencies.

    The Committee on National Security Systems is preparing instructions for implementing a unified certification and accreditation (C&A) process that could be used on all national security systems, including those in the Defense Department and intelligence community, said Tony Cornish, chairman of the CNSS’ C&A working group.

    At the same time, the National Institute of Standards and Technology plans to update its C&A guidance for systems covered by the Federal Information Security Management Act, said Ron Ross, a senior computer scientist and FISMA implementation lead at NIST.

    “We are very close to producing a unified C&A process for the entire federal government,” Ross said in July at a government security symposium hosted by Symantec. “Within the next six to eight months, you are going to see a plethora of new things coming out” from CNSS and NIST.

    CNSS’ instructions will be incorporated into NIST guidelines in its 800 series of special publications. Ross said a major update of SP 800-53 Rev. 2, “Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems,” is expected in December, and a draft of the first revision of SP 800-37, “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems,” is expected to be released for comment soon.

    A single, governmentwide approach would make it easier for agencies to share data and cooperate with one another and with states, foreign allies and the private sector.

    It could enable reciprocity, or the acceptance of other agencies’ C&A processes, without requiring recertification, and also could streamline acquisition processes by making it easier for vendors and developers to meet one set of standards.

    C&A is a process for ensuring that IT systems are operating with an appropriate level of security. In the certification phase, the security of the system is documented; for accreditation, a designated authority signs off on the system’s fitness to go into operation. The concept has been around for some time, but there has been little standardization.

    “In the past, we each had our own set of policies, and we didn’t look at each other’s,” said Sherrill Nicely, deputy associate director of national intelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    FISMA requires C&A of information technology systems, but that does not apply to national security systems. And within the national security community, the military and intelligence sectors each have had their own way of doing things.

    “Since about 1993, the Defense Department had its program, the Defense IT Security Certification and Accreditation Process,” said Eustace King, DOD chief of acquisition and technology oversight. “It worked pretty well” in a time before DOD’s emphasis on network- centric systems and information sharing, but it lacked enterprise visibility.

    That C&A program was replaced with the Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process. DOD was moving to the program in 2006 to harmonize military and intelligence processes when, a year later, it was expanded to include the rest of the national security community by bringing in the CNSS.

    Through NIST, C&A procedures eventually will be standardized across all of government. However, policies do not change mind-sets, and old habits still remain one of the primary challenges to a standardized process. At DOD, there is a reluctance to accept reciprocity — that is, to give full credit to another agency’s C&A process without recertification, King said.

    The intelligence community faces a similar hurdle, said Sharon Ehlers, an assistant deputy associate director of national intelligence.

    “The cultural change has been the biggest challenge,” Ehlers said. “When it is not invented here, people don’t want to look at it.”