NIST SP 800 55 Revision 1, Performance Measurement Guide For Information Security

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 80

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

NIST Special Publication 800-55 Revision 1

Performance Measurement Guide
for Information Security
Elizabeth Chew, Marianne Swanson, Kevin Stine,
Nadya Bartol, Anthony Brown, and Will Robinson

I N F O R M A T I O N

S E C U R I T Y

Computer Security Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930

July 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce
Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology
James M. Turner, Deputy Director

Reports on Computer Systems Technology
The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the Nation’s
measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of
concept implementations, and technical analyses to advance the development and productive use of
information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of management, administrative,
technical, and physical standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive
unclassified information in federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s
research, guidelines, and outreach efforts in information security, and its collaborative activities with
industry, government, and academic organizations.

ii

Authority
This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in
furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347.
NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements, and for
providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, but such standards and
guidelines shall not apply to national security systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Section 8b(3), Securing Agency
Information Systems, as analyzed in A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental
information is provided in A-130, Appendix III.
This guideline has been prepared for use by federal agencies. It may also be used by nongovernmental
organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright regulations. (Attribution would be
appreciated by NIST.)
Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict standards and guidelines made mandatory and
binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority. Nor should these
guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding the existing authorities of the Secretary of
Commerce, Director of the OMB, or any other federal official.

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this
document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.
Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST,
nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the
best available for the purpose.

iii

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Joan Hash (NIST), Arnold Johnson (NIST), Elizabeth Lennon (NIST),
Karen Scarfone (NIST), Kelley Dempsey (NIST), and Karen Quigg (MITRE) who reviewed
drafts of this document and/or contributed to its development. The authors also gratefully
acknowledge and appreciate the many contributions from individuals and organizations in the
public and private sectors whose thoughtful and constructive comments improved the quality and
usefulness of this publication.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... VIII
1.

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

2.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES....................................................................................6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

3.

Purpose and Scope ...........................................................................................................1
Audience ..........................................................................................................................2
History..............................................................................................................................2
Critical Success Factors ...................................................................................................3
Relationship to Other NIST Documents ..........................................................................4
Document Organization ...................................................................................................5
Agency Head....................................................................................................................6
Chief Information Officer ...............................................................................................6
Senior Agency Information Security Officer...................................................................7
Program Manager/Information System Owner................................................................8
Information System Security Officer...............................................................................8
Other Related Roles .........................................................................................................8

INFORMATION SECURITY MEASURES BACKGROUND.........................................9
3.1
Definition .........................................................................................................................9
3.2
Benefits of Using Measures ...........................................................................................10
3.3
Types of Measures .........................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Implementation Measures..........................................................................................13
3.3.2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Measures............................................................................13
3.3.3 Impact Measures ........................................................................................................14
3.4
Measurement Considerations.........................................................................................15
3.4.1 Organizational Considerations...................................................................................15
3.4.2 Manageability ............................................................................................................15
3.4.3 Data Management Concerns ......................................................................................16
3.4.4 Automation of Measurement Data Collection ...........................................................16
3.5
Information Security Measurement Program Scope......................................................17
3.5.1 Individual Information Systems.................................................................................17
3.5.2 System Development Life Cycle ...............................................................................17
3.5.3 Enterprise-Wide Programs.........................................................................................19

4.

LEGISLATIVE AND STRATEGIC DRIVERS...............................................................20
4.1
Legislative Considerations.............................................................................................20
4.1.1 Government Performance Results Act.......................................................................20
4.1.2 Federal Information Security Management Act ........................................................21
4.2
Federal Enterprise Architecture .....................................................................................22
4.3
Linkage Between Enterprise Strategic Planning and Information Security ..................23

5.

MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS......................................................................24
5.1

Stakeholder Interest Identification.................................................................................25

v

5.2
Goals and Objectives Definition....................................................................................26
5.3
Information Security Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Review .............................27
5.4
Information Security Program Implementation Review................................................27
5.5
Measures Development and Selection ...........................................................................28
5.5.1 Measures Development Approach.............................................................................29
5.5.2 Measures Prioritization and Selection .......................................................................29
5.5.3 Establishing Performance Targets .............................................................................30
5.6
Measures Development Template..................................................................................31
5.7
Feedback Within the Measures Development Process ..................................................33
6.

INFORMATION SECURITY MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION ....................35
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

Prepare for Data Collection ...........................................................................................35
Collect Data and Analyze Results..................................................................................36
Identify Corrective Actions............................................................................................38
Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources..............................................................38
Apply Corrective Actions ..............................................................................................40

APPENDIX A: CANDIDATE MEASURES .......................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................B-1
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES............................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D: SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINIMUM SECURITY REQUIREMENTS . D-1

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Information Security Measurement Program Structure ................................................3
Figure 3-1. Information Security Program Maturity and Types of Measurement .........................12
Figure 5-1. Information Security Measures Development Process ...............................................25
Figure 5-2. Information Security Measures Trend Example .........................................................31
Figure 6-1. Information Security Measurement Program Implementation Process ......................35

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Measurement During System Development ....................................................................18
Table 2. Measures Template and Instructions ...............................................................................32

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is a guide to assist in the development, selection, and implementation of measures
to be used at the information system and program levels. These measures indicate the
effectiveness of security controls applied to information systems and supporting information
security programs. Such measures are used to facilitate decision making, improve performance,
and increase accountability through the collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant
performance-related data—providing a way to tie the implementation, efficiency, and
effectiveness of information system and program security controls to an agency’s success in
achieving its mission. The performance measures development process described in this guide
will assist agency information security practitioners in establishing a relationship between
information system and program security activities under their purview and the agency mission,
helping to demonstrate the value of information security to their organization.
A number of existing laws, rules, and regulations—including the Clinger-Cohen Act, the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA), and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)—cite information
performance measurement in general, and information security performance measurement in
particular, as a requirement. In addition to legislative compliance, agencies can use performance
measures as management tools in their internal improvement efforts and link implementation of
their information security programs to agency-level strategic planning efforts.
The following factors must be considered during development and implementation of an
information security measurement program:
•

Measures must yield quantifiable information (percentages, averages, and numbers);

•

Data that supports the measures needs to be readily obtainable;

•

Only repeatable information security processes should be considered for measurement;
and

•

Measures must be useful for tracking performance and directing resources.

The measures development process described in this document ensures that measures are
developed with the purpose of identifying causes of poor performance and pointing to
appropriate corrective actions.
This document focuses on the development and collection of three types of measures:
•

Implementation measures to measure execution of security policy;

•

Effectiveness/efficiency measures to measure results of security services delivery; and

•

Impact measures to measure business or mission consequences of security events.

viii

The types of measures that can realistically be obtained, and that can also be useful for
performance improvement, depend on the maturity of the agency’s information security program
and the information system’s security control implementation. Although different types of
measures can be used simultaneously, the primary focus of information security measures shifts
as the implementation of security controls matures.

ix

1.

INTRODUCTION

The requirement to measure information security performance is driven by regulatory, financial,
and organizational reasons. A number of existing laws, rules, and regulations cite information
performance measurement in general, and information security performance measurement in
particular, as a requirement. These laws include the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), and
the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).
While these laws, rules, and regulations are important drivers for information security
measurement, equally compelling are the benefits that information security performance
measurement can yield for organizations. Agencies can use performance measures as
management tools in their internal improvement efforts and link implementation of their
information security programs to agency-level strategic planning efforts. Information security
measures are used to facilitate decision making and improve performance and accountability
through collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related data. They provide
the means for tying the implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of security controls to an
agency’s success in its mission-critical activities. The performance measures development
process described in this document will assist agency information security practitioners in
establishing a relationship between information system and program security activities under
their purview and the agency mission, helping to demonstrate the value of information security
to their organization.
1.1

Purpose and Scope

This document is a guide for the specific development, selection, and implementation of
information system-level and program-level measures to indicate the implementation,
efficiency/effectiveness, and impact of security controls, and other security-related activities. It
provides guidelines on how an organization, through the use of measures, identifies the adequacy
of in-place security controls, policies, and procedures. It provides an approach to help
management decide where to invest in additional information security resources, identify and
evaluate nonproductive security controls, and prioritize security controls for continuous
monitoring. It explains the measurement development and implementation processes and how
measures can be used to adequately justify information security investments and support riskbased decisions. The results of an effective information security measurement program can
provide useful data for directing the allocation of information security resources and should
simplify the preparation of performance-related reports. Successful implementation of such a
program assists agencies in meeting the annual requirements of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to report the status of agency information security programs.
NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-55, Revision 1, expands upon NIST’s previous work in the
field of information security measures to provide additional program-level guidelines for
quantifying information security performance in support of organizational strategic goals. The
processes and methodologies described in this document link information system security
performance to agency performance by leveraging agency-level strategic planning processes. By
doing so, the processes and methodologies help demonstrate how information security
1

contributes to accomplishing agency strategic goals and objectives. Performance measures
developed according to this guide will enhance the ability of agencies to respond to a variety of
federal government mandates and initiatives, including FISMA.
This publication uses the security controls identified in NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security
Controls for Federal Information Systems, as a basis for developing measures that support the
evaluation of information security programs. In addition to providing guidelines on developing
measures, the guide lists a number of candidate measures that agencies can tailor, expand, or use
as models for developing other measures. 1 While focused on NIST SP 800-53 security controls,
the process described in this guide can be applied to develop agency-specific measures related to
security controls that are not included in NIST SP 800-53.
The information security measurement program described in this document can be helpful in
fulfilling regulatory requirements. The program provides an underlying data collection, analysis,
and reporting infrastructure that can be tailored to support FISMA performance measures,
Federal Enterprise Architecture’s (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM) requirements,
and any other enterprise-specific requirements for reporting quantifiable information about
information security performance.
1.2

Audience

This guide is written primarily for Chief Information Officers (CIOs), Senior Agency
Information Security Officers (SAISOs)—often referred to as Chief Information Security
Officers (CISOs)—and Information System Security Officers (ISSOs). It targets individuals
who are familiar with security controls as described in NIST SP 800-53. The concepts,
processes, and candidate measures presented in this guide can be used within government and
industry contexts.
1.3

History

The approach for measuring security control effectiveness has been under development for
several years. NIST SP 800-55, Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology Systems, and
NIST Draft SP 800-80, Guide to Developing Performance Metrics for Information Security, both
addressed information security measurement. This document supersedes these publications by
building upon them to align this approach with security controls provided in NIST SP 800-53,
Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. The document also expands
on concepts and processes introduced in the original version of NIST SP 800-55 to assist with
the assessment of information security program implementation.
Security control implementation for information systems and information security programs is
reviewed and reported annually to OMB in accordance with the Electronic Government Act of
2002, which includes FISMA. The Act requires departments and agencies to demonstrate that

1

Candidate measures offered by this guide do not constitute mandatory requirements. Rather, they provide a sampling of
measures to be considered for use by the readers of this guide.

2

they are meeting applicable information security requirements, and to document the level of
performance based on results of annual program reviews.
1.4

Critical Success Factors

An information security measurement program within an organization should include four
interdependent components (see Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. Information Security Measurement Program Structure
The foundation of strong upper-level management support is critical, not only for the success of
the information security program, but also for the program’s implementation. This support
establishes a focus on information security within the highest levels of the organization. Without
a solid foundation (i.e., proactive support of personnel in positions that control information
resources), the information security measurement program can fail when pressured by
organizational dynamics and budget limitations.
The second component of an effective information security measurement program is the
existence of information security policies and procedures backed by the authority necessary to
enforce compliance. Information security policies delineate the information security
management structure, clearly assign information security responsibilities, and lay the foundation
needed to reliably measure progress and compliance. Procedures document management’s
position on the implementation of an information security control and the rigor with which it is
applied. Measures are not easily obtainable if no procedures are in place that supply data to be
used for measurement.

3

The third component is developing and establishing quantifiable performance measures that are
designed to capture and provide meaningful performance data. To provide meaningful data,
quantifiable information security measures must be based on information security performance
goals and objectives, and be easily obtainable and feasible to measure. They must also be
repeatable, provide relevant performance trends over time, and be useful for tracking
performance and directing resources.
Finally, the information security measurement program itself must emphasize consistent periodic
analysis of the measures data. Results of this analysis are used to apply lessons learned, improve
effectiveness of existing security controls, and plan for the implementation of future security
controls to meet new information security requirements as they occur. Accurate data collection
must be a priority with stakeholders and users if the collected data is to be meaningful and useful
in improving the overall information security program.
The success of an information security program implementation should be judged by the degree
to which meaningful results are produced. A comprehensive information security measurement
program should provide substantive justification for decisions that directly affect the information
security posture of an organization. These decisions include budget and personnel requests and
allocation of available resources. An information security measurement program should assist in
the preparation of required reports relating to information security performance.
1.5

Relationship to Other NIST Documents

This document is a continuation in a series of NIST special publications intended to assist
information management and information security personnel in the establishment,
implementation, and maintenance of an information security program. It focuses on quantifying
information security performance based on the results of a variety of information security
activities. This approach draws upon many sources of data, including:
•

Information security assessment and testing efforts such as those described in NIST SP
800-53A, Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems;

•

Information security risk assessments efforts, such as those described in NIST SP 800-30,
Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems; and

•

Minimum security controls recommended in NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security
Controls for Federal Information Systems.

NIST SP 800-55, Revision 1, differs from NIST SP 800-53A in that it provides a quantitative
approach to measuring and analyzing security controls implementation and effectiveness at the
information system and program levels, aggregated across multiple individual efforts. It also
provides an approach for aggregating information from multiple information systems to measure
and analyze information security from an enterprise-level perspective. NIST SP 800-53A
provides procedures for assessing if the security controls are implemented and operating as
intended according to the information system security plan for the system. The assessment data
produced as a result of applying NIST SP 800-53A assessment procedures can serve as a data
source for information security measurement.

4

Information security measurement results described in this guide will provide inputs into the
information security program activities described in a number of NIST publications, including:
•

NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: A Guide for Managers; and

•

NIST SP 800-65, Integrating IT Security into the Capital Planning and Investment
Control Process.

These measures can also be used to assist with prioritization for the continuous monitoring of
security controls, as described in NIST SP 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and
Accreditation of Federal Information Systems.
1.6

Document Organization

The remaining sections of this guide discuss the following:
•

Section 2, Roles and Responsibilities, describes the roles and responsibilities of agency
staff that have a direct interest in the success of the information security program, and in
the establishment of an information security measurement program.

•

Section 3, Information Security Measures Background, provides guidelines on the
background and definition of information security measures, the benefits of
implementation, various types of information security measures, and the factors that
directly affect success of an information security measurement program.

•

Section 4, Legislative and Strategic Drivers, links information security to strategic
planning through relevant legislation and guidelines.

•

Section 5, Measures Development Process, presents the approach and process used for
development of information security measures.

•

Section 6, Information Security Measurement Implementation, discusses those factors
that can affect the implementation of an information security measurement program.

This guide contains four appendices. Appendix A, Candidate Measures, provides practical
examples of information security measures that can be used or modified to meet specific agency
requirements. Appendix B provides a list of acronyms used in this document. Appendix C lists
references. Appendix D lists specifications for minimum security requirements taken from
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200, Minimum Security Requirements for
Federal Information and Information Systems.

5

2.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section outlines the key roles and responsibilities for developing and implementing
information security measures. While information security is the responsibility of all members
of the organization, the positions described in Sections 2.1 through 2.6 are key information
security stakeholders that should work to instill a culture of information security awareness
across the organization..
2.1

Agency Head

The specific Agency Head responsibilities related to information security measurement are as
follows:
•

Ensuring that information security measures are used in support of agency strategic and
operational planning processes to secure the organization’s mission;

•

Ensuring that information security measures are integrated into annual reporting on the
effectiveness of the agency information security program by the Chief Information
Officer (CIO);

•

Demonstrating support for information security measures development and
implementation, and communicating official support to the agency;

•

Ensuring that information security measurement activities have adequate financial and
human resources for success;

•

Actively promoting information security measurement as an essential facilitator of
information security performance improvement throughout the agency; and

•

Approving policy to officially institute measures collection.
Chief Information Officer 2

2.2

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has the following responsibilities related to information
security measurement:

2

•

Using information security measures to assist in monitoring compliance with applicable
information security requirements;

•

Using information security measures in annually reporting on effectiveness of the agency
information security program to the agency head;

•

Demonstrating management’s commitment to information security measures
development and implementation through formal leadership;

When an agency has not designated a formal Chief Information Officer position, FISMA requires the associated responsibilities
to be handled by a comparable agency official.

6

•

Formally communicating the importance of using information security measures to
monitor the overall health of the information security program and to comply with
applicable regulations;

•

Ensuring information security measurement program development and implementation;

•

Allocating adequate financial and human resources to the information security
measurement program;

•

Reviewing information security measures regularly and using information security
measures data to support policy, resource allocation, budget decisions, and assessment of
the information security program posture and operational risks to agency information
systems;

•

Ensuring that a process is in place to address issues discovered through measures analysis
and taking corrective actions such as revising information security procedures and
providing additional information security training to staff; and

•

Issuing policy, procedures, and guidelines to officially develop, implement, and institute
measures.

2.3

Senior Agency Information Security Officer

Depending upon the agency, the Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) may
sometimes be referred to as the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Within this
document, the term SAISO is used to represent both the SAISO and the CISO. The SAISO has
the following responsibilities related to information security measurement:
•

Integrating information security measurement into the process for planning,
implementing, evaluating, and documenting remedial actions to address any deficiencies
in the information security policies, procedures, and practices of the agency;

•

Obtaining adequate financial and human resources to support information security
measurement program development and implementation;

•

Leading the development of any internal guidelines or policy related to information
security measures;

•

Using information security measures in support of the agency CIO’s annual reporting to
the agency head on the effectiveness of the agency’s information security program,
including progress of remedial actions;

•

Conducting information security measures development and implementation;

•

Ensuring that a standard process is used throughout the agency for information security
measures development, creation, analysis, and reporting; and,

•

Using information security measures for policy, resource allocation, and budget
decisions.

7

2.4

Program Manager/Information System Owner

Program managers, as well as information system owners, are responsible for ensuring that
proper security controls are in place to address the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of
information and information systems. The program manager/information system owner has the
following responsibilities related to information security measurement:
•

Participating in information security measurement program development and
implementation by providing feedback on the feasibility of data collection and
identifying data sources and repositories;

•

Educating staff on the development, collection, analysis, and reporting of information
security measures and how it will affect information security policy, requirements,
resource allocation, and budget decisions;

•

Ensuring that measurement data is collected consistently and accurately and is provided
to designated staff who are analyzing and reporting the data;

•

Directing full participation and cooperation of staff, when required;

•

Reviewing information security measures data regularly and using it for policy, resource
allocation, and budget decisions; and

•

Supporting implementation of corrective actions, identified through measuring
information security performance.

2.5

Information System Security Officer

The Information System Security Officer (ISSO) has the following responsibilities related to
information security measurement:

2.6

•

Participating in information security measurement program development and
implementation by providing feedback on the feasibility of data collection and
identifying data sources and repositories; and

•

Collecting data or providing measurement data to designated staff that are collecting,
analyzing, and reporting the data.
Other Related Roles

Information security measurement may require inputs from a variety of organizational
components or stakeholders, including incident response, information technology operations,
privacy, enterprise architecture, human resources, physical security, and others. Section 5.1 lists
additional stakeholders.

8

3.

INFORMATION SECURITY MEASURES BACKGROUND

This section provides basic information on what information security measures are and why
information security performance should be measured. Additionally, this section defines types
of measures that can be used; discusses the key aspects of making an information security
measurement program successful; and identifies the uses of measures for management, reporting,
and decision making.
3.1

Definition

Information security measures are used to facilitate decision making and improve performance
and accountability through the collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related
data. The purpose of measuring performance is to monitor the status of measured activities and
facilitate improvement in those activities by applying corrective actions based on observed
measurements.
Information security measures can be obtained at different levels within an organization.
Detailed measures, collected at the information system level, can be aggregated and rolled up to
progressively higher levels, depending on the size and complexity of an organization. While a
case can be made for using different terms for more detailed and aggregated items, such as
“metrics” and “measures,” this document standardizes on “measures” to mean the results of data
collection, analysis, and reporting. This document refers to the process of data collection,
analysis, and reporting as “measurement.”
Information security measures are based on information security performance goals and
objectives. Information security performance goals state the desired results of an information or
security program implementation, such as, “All employees should receive adequate information
security awareness training.” Information security performance objectives enable
accomplishment of goals by identifying practices defined by information security policies and
procedures that direct consistent implementation of security controls across the organization.
Examples of information security performance objectives, corresponding to the example goal
cited above, are: All new employees receive new employee training. Employee training includes
a summary of the Rules of Behavior. Employee training includes a summary of, and a reference
to, the organization’s information security policies and procedures.
Information security measures monitor the accomplishment of goals and objectives by
quantifying the implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of security controls; analyzing the
adequacy of information security program activities; and identifying possible improvement
actions. During measures development, goals and objectives from federal guidelines, legislation,
regulations, and enterprise-level guidance are identified and prioritized to ensure that the
measurable aspects of information security performance correspond to the operational priorities
of the organization.
Information security measures must yield quantifiable information for comparison purposes,
apply formulas for analysis, and track changes using the same points of reference. Percentages

9

or averages are most common. Absolute numbers are sometimes useful, depending on the
activity that is being measured.
Data required for calculating measures must be readily obtainable, and the process that is under
consideration needs to be measurable. Only processes that can be consistent and repeatable
should be considered for measurement. Even though the processes may be repeatable and stable,
measurable data may be difficult to obtain if the processes and their performance have not been
documented. Measures must use easily obtainable data to ensure that the burden of measurement
on the organization does not defeat the purpose of measurement by absorbing resources that may
be needed elsewhere. Examples of information security activities that can provide data for
measurement include risk assessments, penetration testing, security assessments, and continuous
monitoring. Other assessment activities (such as the effectiveness of a training and awareness
program) can also be quantified and used as data sources for measures.
To be useful in tracking performance and directing resources, measures need to provide relevant
performance trends over time and point to improvement actions that can be applied to problem
areas. Management should use measures to review performance by observing trends, identifying
and prioritizing corrective actions, and directing the application of those corrective actions based
on risk mitigation factors and available resources. The measures development process, described
in Section 5, ensures that measures are developed with the purpose of identifying causes of poor
performance and point to appropriate corrective actions.
3.2

Benefits of Using Measures

An information security measurement program provides a number of organizational and
financial benefits. Major benefits include increasing accountability for information security
performance; improving effectiveness of information security activities; demonstrating
compliance with laws, rules and regulations; and providing quantifiable inputs for resource
allocation decisions.
Increase Accountability: Information security measures can increase accountability for
information security by helping to identify specific security controls that are implemented
incorrectly, are not implemented, or are ineffective. Data collection and analysis processes can
facilitate identification of the personnel responsible for security controls implementation within
specific organizational components or for specific information systems.
Improve Information Security Effectiveness: An information security measurement program
will enable organizations to quantify improvements in securing information systems and
demonstrate quantifiable progress in accomplishing agency strategic goals and objectives.
Information security measures can assist with determining the effectiveness of implemented
information security processes, procedures, and security controls by relating results of
information security activities and events (e.g., incident data, revenue lost to cyber attacks) to
security controls and information security investments.
Demonstrate Compliance: Organizations can demonstrate compliance with applicable laws,
rules, and regulations by implementing and maintaining an information security measurement
program. Information security measures will assist in satisfying the annual FISMA reporting
10

requirement to state performance measures for past and current fiscal years. Additionally,
information security measures can be used as input into the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and Inspectors General (IG) audits. Implementation of an information security
measurement program will demonstrate agency commitment to proactive information security.
It will also greatly reduce time spent by agencies in collecting data, which is routinely requested
by the GAO and IG during audits and for subsequent status updates.
Provide Quantifiable Inputs for Resource Allocation Decisions: Fiscal constraints and market
conditions compel government and industry to operate on reduced budgets. In such an
environment, it is difficult to justify broad investments in the information security infrastructure.
Information security investments should be allocated in accordance with a comprehensive risk
management program. Use of information security measures will support risk-based decision
making by contributing quantifiable information to the risk management process. It will allow
organizations to measure successes and failures of past and current information security
investments, and should provide quantifiable data that will support resource allocation for future
investments. Using the results of the measures analysis, program managers and system owners
can isolate problems, use collected data to justify investment requests, and then target
investments specifically to the areas in need of improvement. By using measures to target
security investments, these measures can aid organizations in obtaining the best value from
available resources.
3.3

Types of Measures

The maturity of an organization’s information security program determines the type of measures
that can be gathered successfully. A program’s maturity is defined by the existence and
institutionalization of processes and procedures. As an information security program matures, its
policies become more detailed and better documented, the processes it uses become more
standardized and repeatable, and the program produces a greater quantity of data that can be used
for performance measurement.
Figure 3-1 depicts this continuum by illustrating measurement considerations for information
security programs. As Figure 3-1 illustrates, less mature information security programs need to
develop their goals and objectives before being able to implement effective measurement. More
mature programs use implementation measures to evaluate performance, while the most mature
programs use effectiveness/efficiency and business impact measures to determine the effect of
their information security processes and procedures.
An information security program is dependent upon upper-level management support to define
its goals and objectives. These goals and objectives may be expressed through information
security policies and processes at the program’s inception, or in a variety of other sources.
(Goals and objectives are addressed in more detail in Sections 4.1 and 5.2.) Information security
policies are documented, and information security procedures begin to stabilize, as the program
is implemented and begins to mature. To be useful, information security measurement requires
existence of documented procedures and some available data on the implementation of security
controls.

11

Figure 3-1. Information Security Program Maturity and Types of Measurement

A mature program normally uses multiple tracking mechanisms to document and quantify
various aspects of its performance. As more data becomes available, the difficulty of
measurement decreases and the ability to automate data collection increases. Data collection
automation depends on the availability of data from automated sources versus the availability of
data input by personnel. Manual data collection involves developing questionnaires and
conducting interviews and surveys with the organization’s staff. More usable data is available
from semi automated and automated data sources—such as self-assessment tools, certification
and accreditation (C&A) databases, and incident reporting/response databases—as an
information security program matures. Measures data collection is considered to be fully
automated when all data is gathered by automated data sources without human involvement or
intervention.
Types of measures (implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, and impact) that can realistically
be obtained and are useful for performance improvement depend on the maturity of the security
control implementation. Although different types of measures can be used simultaneously, the
primary focus of information security measures shifts as implementation of the information
security program matures. As information security program goals and strategic plans are

12

documented and implemented, the ability to reliably collect the outcome of their implementation
improves. As an organization’s information security program evolves and performance data
becomes more readily available, measures will focus on program effectiveness/efficiency and the
operational results of security control implementation. Once information security is integrated
into an organization’s processes, the processes become repeatable, measurement data collection
becomes fully automated, and the mission or business impact of information security-related
actions and events can be determined by analyzing and correlating the measurement data.
Appendix A contains examples of implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, and impact
measures.
3.3.1

Implementation Measures

Implementation measures are used to demonstrate progress in implementing information security
programs, specific security controls, and associated policies and procedures. Examples of
implementation measures related to information security programs include the percentage of
information systems with approved system security plans and the percentage of information
systems with password policies configured as required. At first, the results of these measures
might be less than 100 percent. However, as the information security program and its associated
policies and procedures mature, results should reach and remain at 100 percent. At this point, the
organization should begin to focus its measurement efforts on effectiveness/efficiency and
impact measures.
Implementation measures can also examine system-level areas—for example, the percentage of
servers within a system with a standard configuration. At first, the results of this system-level
measure will likely be less than 100 percent. When the implementation measure results reach and
remain at 100 percent, it can be concluded that the information systems have fully implemented
the security controls addressed by this measure, and measurement activities can refocus on other
controls in need of improvement. After most implementation measures reach and remain at 100
percent, the organization should begin to focus its measurement efforts on
effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures. Organizations should never fully retire
implementation measures because they are effective at pointing out specific security controls that
are in need of improvement; however, as an organization matures, the emphasis and resources of
the measurement program should shift away from implementation and towards
effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures.
Implementation measures require data that can be easily obtained from information security
assessment reports, quarterly and annual FISMA reports, plans of action and milestones
(POA&M), and other commonly used means of documenting and tracking information security
program activities.
3.3.2

Effectiveness/Efficiency Measures

Effectiveness/efficiency measures are used to monitor if program-level processes and systemlevel security controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and meeting the desired
outcome. These measures concentrate on the evidence and results of assessments and may
require multiple data points quantifying the degree to which information security controls are
13

implemented and the resulting effect(s) on the organization’s information security posture. For
example, the percentage of enterprise operating system vulnerabilities for which patches have
been applied or that have been otherwise mitigated is both an implementation and effectiveness
measure. It measures the implementation of the security control Flaw Remediation (SI-2) in SP
800-53 because the result of the measure demonstrates whether or not vulnerabilities are
mitigated through patches or other means. At the same time, the result indicates the effectiveness
of the Security Alerts and Advisories (SI-5) security control because any result less than the
target indicates a lack of ability to receive alerts and use them to successfully mitigate
vulnerabilities.
Effectiveness/efficiency measures address two aspects of security control implementation
results: the robustness of the result itself, referred to as effectiveness, and the timeliness of the
result, referred to as efficiency. For example, the effectiveness/efficiency measure—percentage
of information security incidents caused by improperly configured access controls—relies on
information regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the following security controls:
Incident Monitoring (IR-5); Audit Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting (AU-6); and Monitoring
Configuration Changes (CM-4).
Additionally, the effectiveness/efficiency measure—the percentage of system components that
undergo maintenance on schedule—relies on information regarding the efficiency of the
following security controls: Periodic Maintenance (MA-2) and Life Cycle Support (SA-3).
Effectiveness/efficiency measures provide key information for information security decision
makers about the results of previous policy and acquisition decisions. These measures can offer
insight for improving performance of information security programs. Furthermore,
effectiveness/efficiency measures can be used as a data source for continuous monitoring efforts
because they help determine the effectiveness of security controls. The results of
effectiveness/efficiency measures can be used to ascertain whether selected security controls are
functioning properly and are helping facilitate corrective action prioritization.
Effectiveness/efficiency measures may require fusing information security program activities
data with the data obtained from automated monitoring and evaluation tools in a manner that can
be directly tied to security controls implementation.
3.3.3

Impact Measures

Impact measures are used to articulate the impact of information security on an organization’s
mission. These measures are inherently organization-specific since each organization has a
unique mission. Depending upon the organization’s mission, impact measures can be used to
quantify:
•

Cost savings produced by the information security program or through costs incurred
from addressing information security events;

•

The degree of public trust gained/maintained by the information security program; or

•

Other mission-related impacts of information security.
14

These measures combine information about the results of security controls implementation with
a variety of information about resources. They can provide the most direct insight into the value
of information security to the organization and are the ones that are sought out by executives.
For example, the percentage of the agency’s information system budget devoted to information
security relies on information regarding the implementation, effectiveness, and outcome of the
following NIST SP 800-53 security controls: Allocation of Resources (SA-2) and Acquisitions
(SA-4). Another, more generalized budget-related impact measure would be the number of
information security investments reported to OMB in an Exhibit 300. Rather than examining the
impact of a security control or controls, this measure evaluates the relationship between the
portfolio of information security investments and the budget process.
Impact measures require tracking a variety of resource information across the organization in a
manner that can be directly tied to information security activities and events.
3.4

Measurement Considerations

Organizations embarking on information security performance measurement should be aware of
several considerations that can help make their program a success. These include specific
organizational structure and processes as well as an understanding of required budget, personnel,
and time resources.
3.4.1

Organizational Considerations

Appropriate stakeholders must be included in the development of information security measures
and program implementation. Organizational elements that do not have information security as
their primary responsibility but interact with information security on a regular basis (e.g.,
training, resource management, legal department) may need to be included in this process. (See
Section 5.1 for more information on stakeholders.) If an organizational element exists that is
responsible for performance measurement in general, the development and implementation of an
information security measurement program should be coordinated with that organization. If a
process exists for approving organization-wide data calls and actions, development and
implementation of the information security measurement program should comply with the
existing process.
3.4.2

Manageability

Any information security measurement program must be manageable for the implementing
organization. Results of many information security activities can be quantified and used for
performance measurement; however, since resources are limited and the majority of resources
should be applied to correcting performance gaps, organizations should prioritize measurement
requirements to ensure that a limited number of measures are gathered. Each stakeholder should
be responsible for as few measures as possible—usually two to three measures per stakeholder.
This helps ensure that the measures that are collected are meaningful, yield impact and outcome
findings, and provide stakeholders with the time necessary to use the results to address
performance gaps. As the program matures and target levels of measurement are reached,
15

obsolete measures should be phased out and new ones that measure completion and effectiveness
of more current items should be used. New measures will also be required if the organization’s
mission is redefined or if changes are made to information security policies and guidelines.
3.4.3

Data Management Concerns

To ascertain the quality and validity of data, data collection methods and data repositories used
for measures data collection and reporting, either directly or as data sources, should be
standardized. The validity of data is suspect if the primary data source is an incident-reporting
database that stores only the information reported by a few organizational elements, or if
reporting processes between organizations are inconsistent. The importance of standardizing
reporting processes cannot be overemphasized. When organizations are developing and
implementing processes that may serve as inputs into an information security measurement
program, they must ensure that data gathering and reporting are clearly defined to facilitate the
collection of valid data.
Organizations must understand that although they may collect substantial amounts of
information security data, not all data will be useful for their information security measurement
program at any given point in time. Any data collection specifically for the purpose of
information security measures must be as nonintrusive as possible—and of maximum usefulness
to ensure that available resources are used primarily to correct problems rather than collect data.
Establishment of an information security measurement program will require a substantial
investment to ensure that the program is implemented in a way that will maximize its benefits.
Benefits of the program are expected to outweigh the costs of investing resources to maintain the
program.
Finally, the information contained in information security data repositories represents a
significant collection of operational and vulnerability data. Due to the sensitivity of this data,
information security performance measurement data repositories need to be protected
accordingly.
3.4.4

Automation of Measurement Data Collection

Efficient data management is facilitated by automating measurement data collection. Automating
measurement data collection standardizes data collection and reporting, and helps institutionalize
measurement activity by integrating it into business processes. In addition, automated data
collection minimizes opportunities for human error, leading to greater accuracy of available data.
Standardized collection and reporting can also increase data availability, as collections are likely
to be housed in a centralized database or similar data repository.
As a complement to automating performance measurement, organizations should also consider
how performance measurement automation can supplement other automated information security
tasks. For example, Extensible Markup Language (XML)-formatted configuration checklists can
allow organizations to use Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS), Government Off-The-Shelf
(GOTS), or open-source tools to automatically check their information security configuration
and map it to technical compliance requirements. While these checklists are primarily used for
16

compliance with regulations such as FISMA, they can also be used to map specific technical
control settings to the corresponding NIST SP 800-53 security controls, which can make the
verification of compliance more consistent and efficient. For example, a checklist could examine
the password strength settings on a system and report whether or not those settings meet
requirements specified in NIST SP 800-53. The results of such automated data collection could
provide dynamic updates to an agency’s automated information security performance measures
to indicate if information security targets are being achieved and where corrective actions and
mitigation activities are required.
3.5

Information Security Measurement Program Scope

An information security measurement program can be scoped to a variety of environments and
needs:
•

Quantifying information system-level security performance for an operational
information system;

•

Quantifying the integration of information security into the system development life
cycle (SDLC) during information system and software development processes; and

•

Quantifying enterprise-wide information security performance.

Information security measures can be applied to organizational units, sites, or other
organizational constructs. Organizations should carefully define the scope of their information
security measurement program based on specific stakeholder needs, strategic goals and
objectives, operating environments, risk priorities, and information security program maturity.
3.5.1

Individual Information Systems

Information security measurement can be applied at the information system level to provide
quantifiable data regarding the implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, or impact of required or
desired security controls. Information system owners can use measures to support the
determination of the information system’s security posture, demonstrate compliance with
organizational requirements, and identify areas in need of improvement. Information security
measurement can support certification and accreditation activities (e.g. risk assessments,
information system security plans, and continuous monitoring), FISMA reporting activities, or
capital planning activities.
3.5.2

System Development Life Cycle

Information security measurement should be used throughout the SDLC to monitor
implementation of appropriate security controls. Formalized measurement of information
security during the SDLC provides information to the project manager that is essential to
understanding how well information security is integrated into the SDLC and to what degree
vulnerabilities are being introduced into the information system. Different measures may be

17

useful for different project activities. The following table provides examples of information
security measures that can be used during the SDLC for a variety of project activities.
Table 1. Measurement During System Development 3
SDLC Phase
Acquisition/Development

Acquisition/Development

Acquisition/Development

Acquisition/Development

3

Relevant Measures

Purpose

• Percentage of product
defects that negatively
impact the security
posture of the system

• Identify software
defects that may
be exploited in the
future

• Percentage of information
security requirements
(i.e., security controls
implemented) that are
mapped to design

• Determine if
security
requirements are
being planned and
implemented

• Number of entry points
for a module (should be
the minimum necessary)

• Fewer entry
points reduces the
amount of
monitoring
required
• Proactively
address security
defects prior to
testing and
implementation

• Number of discovered
defects that are known as
software vulnerabilities
(e.g., buffer overflows
and cross-site scripting)
• Number of deviations
between design, code,
and requirements
• Number of defects and
the area of the code in
which they were found (it
is a higher risk to have
the defects between
components, unit seams,
or other interfaces)
• Percent of discovered
vulnerabilities that have
been mitigated

Value
• Provides insight into the
effectiveness of life cycle
processes and information
security training for
developers
• Indicates need for additional
security controls in
operations
• Provides insight into
inclusion of information
security requirements in
early releases
• Provides insight into
complexity of information
security implementation
• Indicates short- and longterm need for additional
security controls in
operations
• Provides insight into
possibility of inherent
vulnerabilities and increased
enterprise risk
• Helps minimize
development and
maintenance rework costs

These measures were developed in collaboration with Department of Homeland Security Software Assurance Program.

18

SDLC Phase
Acquisition/Development

Implementation/Assessment

Relevant Measures

Purpose

• Cost/schedule variance in
information security
activities

• Monitor planning
and
implementation of
security activities

• Percentage of modules
that contain
vulnerabilities
• Percentage of failed
security control
requirements

• Identify software
defects that may
be exploited in the
future

Value
• Provides insight into cost
and schedule risks to project
success
• Increases accuracy in
planning of future projects
• Provides insight into risk of
the system being exploited
when implemented
• Indicates need for additional
security controls in
operations

Collecting and analyzing these types of measures will help the project manager in the following
manner:
•

Determine if software defects that may impact information security are being identified
early in the life cycle where they are more cost-effective to fix;

•

Identify and remove potential vulnerabilities in software and develop more secure design
practices;

•

Identify and investigate trends that require corrective actions, such as training or revising
poorly written and confusing procedures;

•

Determine if the information system will comply with required security controls; and

•

Track trends in information security risk throughout the SDLC.

Collecting, analyzing, and reporting appropriate security measures during the SDLC can be used
to improve integration of information security into the information system development effort to
increase the overall assurance that system security requirements are built in rather than added
later.
3.5.3

Enterprise-Wide Programs

Information security measurement can be implemented on an enterprise-wide level to monitor
the implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, and impact on the organization’s information
security activities. Enterprise-level measures may be derived by aggregating multiple
information system-level measures or developed by using the entire enterprise as the scope.
For an enterprise-wide measurement to be effective, the organization must operate at a certain
level of maturity to ensure that processes the measures depend upon are consistent, repeatable,
and can ensure availability of data across the enterprise.

19

4. LEGISLATIVE AND STRATEGIC DRIVERS
This section explains the relationship between overall agency performance measures reporting
and information security performance measures reporting, and provides agencies with guidelines
on how to link these two activities to ensure that their information security program contributes
to overall accomplishment of the agency mission, goals, and objectives. Sections 4.1 and 4.2
provide an overview of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and the Federal Enterprise Architecture from a
performance measurement point of view and describe their associated performance management
requirements, while Section 4.3 discusses the linkage between enterprise strategic planning and
information security.
4.1

Legislative Considerations

Legislation such as GPRA and FISMA, along with executive regulations, is driving an increased
emphasis on managing, quantifying, and reporting agency performance. The purpose of these
efforts is to facilitate the streamlining of U.S. government operations, improve efficiencies in
delivering services, and demonstrate the value of these services to the public. Agencies are
required to strategically plan their initiatives and make these plans and corresponding
performance measures available to the public. The Executive Branch also develops initiatives
that may require organizations to collect and report performance measures.
4.1.1

Government Performance Results Act

GPRA focuses on improving program effectiveness and efficiency by adequately articulating
program goals and providing information on program performance. To structure and facilitate
program improvement, it requires agencies to develop multiyear strategic plans and annually
report their performance against these plans.
The purpose of GPRA is to:
•

Improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the federal
government by systematically holding federal agencies accountable for achieving
program results;

•

Initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot projects in setting program
goals, measuring program performance against those goals, and reporting publicly on
their progress;

•

Improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new
focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction;

•

Help federal managers improve service delivery by requiring that they plan for meeting
program objectives, and by providing them with information about program results and
service quality;

20

•

Improve congressional decision making by providing more objective information on
achieving statutory objectives and by reporting on the relative effectiveness and
efficiency of federal programs and spending; and

•

Improve internal management of the federal government. 4

GPRA mandates agencies to conduct strategic and performance planning that culminates in
annual submissions of strategic plans and performance measures reports. GPRA puts this
planning in the context of the overall agency Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC)
process by emphasizing “managing for results—what the program accomplishes and how well
the accomplishments match with the program’s purpose and objectives.” 5
As a part of their annual strategic and performance planning processes, agencies should:
•

Define their long-term and annual goals and objectives;

•

Set measurable targets of performance; and

•

Report their performance against goals and objectives to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on a quarterly basis.

This performance measures reporting directly supports GPRA by providing a means to track
performance against agency goals and objectives and measurable performance targets. Agencies
can demonstrate the impact of information security on their missions by aligning information
security performance measures with their information security goals and objectives.
GPRA is implemented by OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget, Part 6.
4.1.2

Federal Information Security Management Act

FISMA requires federal agencies to provide appropriate protection of their resources through
implementing a comprehensive information security program that is commensurate with the
sensitivity of the information being processed, transmitted, and stored by agency information
systems. It also requires agencies to assess and report their performance in implementing and
managing their information security programs.
The purpose of FISMA is to:
•

Provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of security controls
over information resources that support federal operations and assets;

•

Recognize the highly networked nature of the current federal computing environment and
provide effective government wide management and oversight of related information

4

Public Law 103-62, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

5

OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, 2005, Section 15, clause 15.5.

21

security risks, including coordination of information security efforts throughout the
civilian, national security, and law enforcement communities;
•

Provide for the development and maintenance of minimum security controls required to
protect federal information and information systems;

•

Provide a mechanism for improved oversight of federal agency information security
programs;

•

Acknowledge that commercially developed information security products offer advanced,
dynamic, robust, and effective information security solutions for the protection of critical
information infrastructures important to national defense and economic security that are
designed, built, and operated by the private sector; and

•

Recognize that the selection of specific technical hardware and software information
security solutions should be made by individual agencies from among commercially
developed products. 6

FISMA also mandated NIST to develop and promulgate standards and guidelines pertaining to
federal information systems.
FISMA requires agencies to identify and assess risks to their information systems and define and
implement appropriate security controls to protect their information resources. It also requires
agencies to report quarterly and annually on the status of their information security programs.
An institutionalized information security performance measurement program enables agencies to
collect and report on relevant FISMA performance indicators. For example, information security
performance measures enable agencies to quickly determine the percentage of their systems that
are certified and accredited, the percentage of their personnel that have taken required
information security training, and their compliance with other FISMA reporting requirements. A
mature information security measurement program also enables agencies to satisfy any new
information security performance measures reporting requirements required internally or
externally by providing a basis for information security data collection, analysis, quantification,
and reporting.
OMB publishes annual guidelines on the process and elements of annual and quarterly FISMA
reporting.
4.2

Federal Enterprise Architecture

In addition to legislative information security performance measurement requirements, the
Executive Branch periodically implements initiatives designed to monitor and improve the
effectiveness of federal organizations. One such Executive Branch initiative that relies on
information security measures is the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). One of FEA’s
reference models is the Performance Reference Model (PRM). The PRM is a standardized

6

Public Law 107-347, E-Government Act of 2002, Title III

22

framework to measure the performance of major IT investments and their contribution to
program performance.
Organizations should consider tying information security measures development and
implementation into FEA efforts to reduce duplication of data collection and facilitate integration
of information security into their enterprise architectures.
4.3 Linkage Between Enterprise Strategic Planning and Information Security
Federal agencies develop their long-term strategic goals as part of their strategic planning
process—a requirement of GPRA. Five to six strategic goals are usually established, each with
several performance objectives that describe how the goal will be accomplished. As a part of
this process, agencies develop performance measures to quantify the accomplishment of their
goals and objectives with quarterly and annual targets for each performance measure.
Information security performance measures provide a means to monitor and report on an
agency’s implementation of its information security program and associated performance
measures as mandated by FISMA. These measures can also help assess the effectiveness of
security controls in protecting agency information resources in support of the agency’s mission.
Ultimately, all efforts must support the agency’s overall goals and objectives, which are defined
and reassessed annually during its strategic planning activities. Information security must be
explicitly tied to at least one goal or objective in the strategic planning process to demonstrate its
importance in accomplishing the agency’s mission. This connection can be established by
identifying goals and objectives that would articulate agency information security requirements
within the context of the overall agency mission. Progress toward accomplishing these goals and
objectives may be monitored by implementing appropriate information security performance
measures.
Information security performance measures can be developed and used at multiple levels within
an organization—including the overall agency information security program, operating bureau
information security programs, or individual agency programs. They can also be scoped to
different types of efforts, as discussed in Section 3.6. Measures developed at different levels of
an organization should be used for internal management and process improvement purposes.
They may also be aggregated to agency-level information security program performance
measures. Agency-level measures will either be reported to the organization’s upper
management or used for external reporting—such as GPRA and FISMA.

23

5.

MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The benefit of devoting the time to set up an information security performance measures
program in advance is similar to that of allowing time for requirements definition during
information system development—investing time early in the process is more effective than
retrofitting requirements once the effort is under way. Important considerations for setting up an
information security performance measures program include:
•

Selecting the measures most appropriate for the organization’s strategy and business
environment, including mission and information security priorities, environment, and
requirements;

•

Taking time to collect input and get buy-in from, and provide education to, all relevant
stakeholders; and

•

Ensuring that appropriate technical and process infrastructure is in place, including
creation/modification of data collection, analysis, and reporting tools.

Two processes—measures development and measures implementation—guide the establishment
and operation of an information security measurement program. The measures development
process establishes the initial set of measures as well as selection of the measures subset that is
appropriate for an organization at a given time. The information security measurement program
implementation process is iterative by nature and ensures that appropriate aspects of information
security are measured for a specific time period. The remainder of this section describes the
measures development process. (Section 6 describes the information security measurement
program implementation process.)
Figure 5-1 illustrates the place of information security measures within a larger organizational
context and demonstrates that they can be used to progressively measure the implementation,
effectiveness/efficiency, and business impact of information security activities within
organizations or for specific information systems.
The information security measures development process consists of two major activities:
•

Identification and definition of the current information security program; and

•

Development and selection of specific measures to gauge the implementation,
effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of the security controls.

The activities outlined in Figure 5-1 need not be done sequentially. The process is provided as a
way to think about measures and facilitate the identification of measures tailored to a specific
organization and its different stakeholder groups.

24

Figure 5-1. Information Security Measures Development Process
5.1

Stakeholder Interest Identification

Phase 1 of the measures development process (see Figure 5-1) identifies relevant stakeholders
and their interests in information security measurement. Anyone within an organization can be
an information security stakeholder, although some individuals or groups have a greater stake
than others. The primary information security stakeholders are:
•

Agency Head;

•

CIO;

•

SAISO/CISO;

•

ISSO;

•

Program manager/information system owner;

•

Information system administrator/network administrator;

•

Security engineers; and

•

Information system support personnel.

Secondary information security stakeholders are members of groups within an organization that
do not have information security as their primary mission but are involved with information
security in some aspects of their operations. Examples of secondary information security
stakeholders may include:
•

Chief Financial Officer (CFO);

25

•

Training organization;

•

Human resources/personnel organization;

•

Inspectors General (IG); and

•

Chief Privacy Officer or other designated official with privacy responsibilities.

Stakeholder interests will differ, depending on the information security aspects of their particular
role and their position within the organizational hierarchy. Each stakeholder may require an
additional set of customized measures that provides a view of the organization’s information
security performance within their area of responsibility. Interests may be determined through
multiple venues, such as interviews, brainstorming sessions, and mission statement reviews. In
many cases, stakeholder interests are driven by laws and regulations. As referenced in Section
3.4.2, each stakeholder should initially be responsible for two to three measures. It is
recommended that fewer measures per stakeholder be used when an organization is establishing
an information security program; the number of measures per stakeholder should gradually
increase as the information security program and information security measurement program
mature.
Stakeholders should be involved in each step of information security measures development to
ensure organizational buy-in to the concept of measuring information security performance.
This involvement will also ensure that a sense of ownership of the information system security
measures exists at multiple levels of the organization to encourage the program’s overall success.
The three measurable aspects of information security—business impact, efficiency/effectiveness,
and implementation—speak to different stakeholders. For example, an executive will be
interested in the business and mission impact of information security activities (e.g., What is the
monetary and public trust cost of the latest incident? Is there an article about us in a major
newspaper?), information security and program managers will be interested in the
effectiveness/efficiency of information security programs (e.g., Could we have prevented the
incident? How fast did we respond to it?), and information systems or network administrators
will want to know what went wrong (e.g., Have we performed all necessary steps to avoid or
minimize the impact of the incident?).
5.2

Goals and Objectives Definition

Phase 2 of the measures development process (see Figure 5-1) is to identify and document
information system security performance goals and objectives that would guide security control
implementation for the information security program of a specific information system. For
federal information systems, these goals and objectives may be expressed in the form of highlevel policies and requirements, laws, regulations, guidelines, and guidance. 7

7

See Section 4 for additional information on requirements, laws, regulations, guidelines, and guidance.

26

Information security program goals and objectives can also be derived from enterprise-level
goals and objectives in support of the overall organization’s mission, which are usually
articulated in agency strategic and performance plans. Applicable documents should be
reviewed to identify and extract applicable information security performance goals and
objectives. Extracted goals and objectives should be validated with the organizational
stakeholders to ensure their acceptance of, and participation in, the measures development
process.
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200, Minimum Security Requirements for
Federal Information and Information Systems, provides specifications for minimum security
requirements. NIST SP 800-53 provides minimum security controls corresponding to lowimpact, moderate-impact, and high-impact categories as defined in FIPS 199, Standards for
Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. Agencies must define
and implement minimum security controls based on the sensitivity of data processed, stored, and
transmitted on their information systems. As such, agency information security programs must
include planning, implementing, monitoring, and reporting on the implementation and
effectiveness of these information system security controls. To facilitate explicit linkage of
information security activities with agency-level strategic planning, agencies can use
specifications for minimum security requirements, stated in FIPS 200, as an input into objectives
for developing information security performance measures. (These specifications, which
correspond to the 17 security control families in NIST SP 800-53, are provided in Appendix D.
Appendix A provides candidate information security measures from both programmatic and
system-level perspectives, with corresponding goals and objectives.)
5.3

Information Security Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Review

Phase 3 of the measures development process (see Figure 5-1) focuses on organization-specific
information security practices. Details of how security controls should be implemented are
usually set forth in organization-specific policies and procedures that define a baseline of
information security practices for the information system. Specifically, they describe how
implementing security controls, requirements, and techniques lead to accomplishing information
security performance goals and objectives. These documents should be examined not only
during initial measures development, but in future measures development activities when the
initial list of measures is exhausted and needs to be replaced. Applicable documents should be
reviewed to identify information security controls, applicable processes, and targets of
performance.
5.4

Information Security Program Implementation Review

In Phase 4 of the measures development process (see Figure 5-1), any existing measures and data
repositories that can be used to derive measures data should be reviewed. Following the review,
applicable information should be extracted and used to identify appropriate implementation

27

evidence to support measures development and data collection. 8 Implementation evidence
points to aspects of security controls that would be indicative of the information security
performance objective being met, or at least that actions leading to the accomplishment of the
performance objective in the future are performed. The information system security
requirements, processes, and procedures that have been implemented can be extracted by
consulting multiple sources, including documents, interviews, and observation.
The following sources may contain information from which measures data can be generated:
•

System Security Plans; 9

•

Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) reports;

•

Latest GAO and IG findings;

•

Tracking of information security-related activities, such as incident handling and
reporting, testing, network management, audit logs, and network and information system
billing;

•

Risk assessments and penetration testing results;

•

C&A documentation (e.g., security assessment reports);

•

Continuous monitoring results;

•

Contingency plans;

•

Configuration management plans; and

•

Training results and statistics.

As information system security practices evolve and the documents that describe them change,
existing measures will be retired and new measures will be developed. To ensure that the newly
developed measures are appropriate, these and similar documents will need to be examined to
identify new areas that should be captured in measures.
5.5

Measures Development and Selection

Phases 5, 6, and 7 of the measures development process, depicted in Figure 5-1, involve
developing measures that track process implementation, efficiency/effectiveness, and mission
impact. The performance measures development process presented in this section describes how
to develop measures in these three areas for information security. (Appendix A provides
candidate measures, some of which correspond to selected security control families in NIST SP
800-53.) To support continuous improvement of security for information systems and programs,
the process explicitly connects information security activities to the organization’s strategic goals

8

Implementation evidence refers to the data collected to support an information security performance measure. Implementation
evidence is discussed in greater detail in Table 2 contained in Section 5.6.

9

NIST SP 800-18 provides guidelines on System Security Plan development.

28

through development and use of performance measures. This approach assumes that
organizations have multiple strategic goals, and that a single goal may require inputs from
multiple measures.
5.5.1

Measures Development Approach

Depending on the scope of the measurement effort, development of information security
measures should focus on gauging the security performance of a specific security control, a
group of security controls, or a security program. Such an approach will result in measures that
help determine where a given organization stands in support of the corresponding strategic
objective—and, when multiple controls or the entire program are being measured, provide a
broad view of information security performance.
Measures corresponding to security control families or individual security controls should:
•

Be mapped directly to the individual security control(s);

•

Use data describing the security control’s implementation to generate required measures
such as POA&M, testing, and project tracking; and

•

Characterize the measure as applicable to low, moderate, or high information system
categorization.

Measures dealing with overall information security program performance should:
•

Be mapped to information security goals and objectives that may encompass performance
of information security across the spectrum of security controls; and

•

Use the data describing the information security program performance to generate
required measures.

5.5.2

Measures Prioritization and Selection

The universe of possible measures, based on existing policies and procedures, will be quite large.
Measures must be prioritized to ensure that the set selected for initial implementation has the
following qualities:
•

•

Facilitates improvement of high-priority security
control implementation as defined using a risk-based
approach. “High priority” may be defined by the
latest GAO or IG reports, results of a risk
assessment, through continuous monitoring, or based
on an internal organizational goal.
Uses data that can realistically be obtained from
existing sources and data repositories (e.g., system
inventories, training databases, POA&Ms).

29

Organizations manage what
they measure. It is important
to select two to three highpriority measures per
stakeholder, determined by
using a risk-based approach.

•

Measures processes that already exist and are established. Measuring inconsistent
processes will not provide meaningful data about information security performance and
will not be useful for targeting specific aspects of performance. However, attempting
such measurement may still be useful to attain a baseline to be closely monitored through
continuous assessment and further measurement to improve the information security
posture.

Organizations may decide to use a weighting scale to differentiate the importance of selected
measures and ensure that results accurately reflect existing information security program
priorities. This would involve assigning values to each measure based on its importance in the
context of the overall information security program. Weight should be based on the overall risk
mitigation goals and would likely reflect higher criticality of enterprise-level initiatives versus
smaller-scale initiatives. This scale is a useful tool that facilitates the integration of information
security measures into the departmental capital planning process.
5.5.3

Establishing Performance Targets

Establishing performance targets is an important component of defining information security
measures. Performance targets establish a benchmark by which success is measured. The
degree of success is based on the proximity of the measure result to the stated performance
target. The mechanics of establishing performance targets differ for implementation measures
and the other two types of measures (effectiveness/efficiency and impact). For implementation
measures, targets are set to 100 percent completion of specific tasks.
Setting performance targets for effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures is complex because
management will need to apply qualitative and subjective reasoning to determine appropriate
levels of security effectiveness and efficiency, and use these levels as targets of performance for
applicable measures. Although every organization desires effective implementation of security
controls, efficient delivery of security services, and minimal impact of security events on its
mission, the associated measurements will be different for different systems. An organization
can attempt to establish performance targets for these measures and should be ready to adjust
these targets, based on actual measurements, once they are obtained. The organization may also
decide not to set targets for these measures until the first measurement is collected that can be
used as a performance baseline. Once the baseline is obtained and corrective actions identified,
appropriate measurement targets and implementation milestones that are realistic for a specific
system environment can be defined. If performance targets cannot be established after the
baseline has been obtained, management should evaluate whether the measured activities and
corresponding measures are providing the expected value for the organization.

30

Establishment of effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures baselines and targets of
performance can be facilitated if historic data that pertains to these measures is available. Trends
observed in the past will provide insight into ranges of performance that have existed previously,
and guide the creation of realistic targets for the future. In the future, expert recommendations
and standards within the industry, when published, may provide a means of setting targets.
Figure 5-2 provides an example of an implementation measure that is based on the percentage of
approved system security plans.
Percentage of Approved System Security Plans
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oct-05

Apr-06

Oct-06

Apr-07

Oct-07

Figure 5-2. Information Security Measures Trend Example
5.6

Measures Development Template

Organizations should document their performance measures in a
standard format to ensure repeatability of measures development,
tailoring, collection, and reporting activities. A standard format will
provide the detail required to guide measures collection, analysis, and
reporting activities. The measures template, provided in Table 2, is
an example of such a format.
While the measures template provides a suggested approach for
measurement, depending upon internal practices and procedures,
organizations may tailor their own performance measurement
templates by using a subset of the provided fields or adding more
fields based on their environment and requirements.

31

This template and the
candidate measures
provided in Appendix
A are examples, and
are meant to be
tailored to fit the
needs of the
organization.

Table 2. Measures Template and Instructions
Field

Data

Measure ID

State the unique identifier used for measure tracking and sorting. The unique identifier
can be from an organization-specific naming convention or can directly reference another
source.

Goal

Statement of strategic goal and/or information security goal. For system-level security
control measures, the goal would guide security control implementation for that
information system. For program-level measures, both strategic goals and information
security goals can be included. For example, information security goals can be derived
from enterprise-level goals in support of the organization’s mission. These goals are
usually articulated in strategic and performance plans. When possible, include both the
enterprise-level goal and the specific information security goal extracted from agency
documentation, or identify an information security program goal that would contribute to
the accomplishment of the selected strategic goal.

Measure

Statement of measurement. Use a numeric statement that begins with the word
“percentage,” “number,” “frequency,” “average,” or a similar term.
If applicable, list the NIST SP 800-53 security control(s) being measured. Security
controls that provide supporting data should be stated in Implementation Evidence. If the
measure is applicable to a specific FIPS 199 impact level (high, moderate, or low), state
this level within the measure.

Type

Statement of whether the measure is implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, or impact.

Formula

Calculation to be performed that results in a numeric expression of a measure. The
information gathered through listing implementation evidence serves as an input into the
formula for calculating the measure.

Target

Threshold for a satisfactory rating for the measure, such as milestone completion or a
statistical measure. Target can be expressed in percentages, time, dollars, or other
appropriate units of measure. Target may be tied to a required completion time frame.
Select final and interim target to enable tracking of progress toward stated goal.

Implementation
Evidence

Implementation evidence is used to compute the measure, validate that the activity is
performed, and identify probable causes of unsatisfactory results for a specific measure.

Frequency

•

For manual data collection, identify questions and data elements that would provide
the data inputs necessary to calculate the measure’s formula, qualify the measure for
acceptance, and validate provided information.

•

For each question or query, state the security control number from NIST SP 800-53
that provides information, if applicable.

•

If the measure is applicable to a specific FIPS 199 impact level, questions should
state the impact level.

•

For automated data collection, identify data elements that would be required for the
formula, qualify the measure for acceptance, and validate the information provided.

Indication of how often the data is collected and analyzed, and how often the data is
reported. Select the frequency of data collection based on a rate of change in a particular
security control that is being evaluated. Select the frequency of data reporting based on
external reporting requirements and internal customer preferences.

32

Field
Responsible
Parties

Data
Indicate the following key stakeholders:
•

Information Owner: Identify organizational component and individual who owns
required pieces of information;

•

Information Collector: Identify the organizational component and individual
responsible for collecting the data. (Note: If possible, Information Collector should
be a different individual or even a representative of a different organizational unit
than the Information Owner, to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest and ensure
separation of duties. Smaller organizations will need to determine whether it is
feasible to separate these two responsibilities.); and

•

Information Customer: Identify the organizational component and individual who
will receive the data.

Data Source

Location of the data to be used in calculating the measure. Include databases, tracking
tools, organizations, or specific roles within organizations that can provide required
information.

Reporting
Format

Indication of how the measure will be reported, such as a pie chart, line chart, bar graph,
or other format. State the type of format or provide a sample.

Candidate measures provided in Appendix A are examples of information security measures and
may or may not be required for regulatory or organizational reporting at any point in time (e.g.,
FISMA). The purpose of listing these measures is to demonstrate examples of measures that can
be:
•

Used as stated;

•

Modified and tailored to a specific organization’s requirement; or

•

Used as a template for other information security measures.

Organizations are encouraged, but not required, to use these measures as a starting point for their
information security measurement efforts.
5.7

Feedback Within the Measures Development Process

Measures that are ultimately selected for implementation will be useful not only for measuring
performance, identifying causes of unsatisfactory performance, and pinpointing improvement
areas, but also for facilitating consistent policy implementation, effecting information security
policy changes, redefining goals and objectives, and supporting continuous improvement. This
relationship is depicted by the feedback arrows in Figure 5-1, which are marked as
Goal/Objective Redefinition, Policy Update, and Continuous Improvement. Once measurement
of security control implementation begins, subsequent measures can be used to identify
performance trends and determine whether the implementation rate is appropriate. A specific
frequency of each measure collection will depend on the life cycle of a measured event. For
example, a measure that pertains to the percentage of completed or updated system security plans
should not be collected more often than semiannually, while a measure that pertains to crackable
passwords should be collected more frequently. Over time, measurements will point to
33

continuous implementation of applicable security controls. Once effectiveness/efficiency
measures are implemented, they will facilitate an understanding of whether the security control
performance goals, identified in the information security policies and procedures, are realistic
and appropriate.
For example, if an information security policy defines a specific password configuration,
compliance with this policy could be determined by measuring the percentage of passwords that
are configured according to the policy. This measure addresses the level of security control
implementation. It is assumed that configuring all passwords according to the policy will
significantly reduce, if not eliminate, information system compromises through broken
passwords. To measure effectiveness of the existing password policy implementation, the
percentage of passwords crackable by common password-breaking tools could be identified.
This measure addresses the effectiveness of the security control as implemented. If a significant
percentage of crackable passwords remains after the required password policy has been
implemented, the logical conclusion is that the underlying policy may be ineffective in thwarting
password compromises. If this is the case, an organization will need to consider strengthening
the policy or implementing other mitigating measures. Costs and benefits of keeping the
password policy as is, tightening it, or replacing password authentication with other techniques
must also be determined. Conducting cost-benefit analyses will generate business impact
measures to address the issue of redefining information system identification and authentication
objectives and appropriately realign these objectives with the information system mission.

34

6.

INFORMATION SECURITY MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Information security measurement implementation involves applying measures for monitoring
information security control performance and using the results to initiate performance
improvement actions. The information security measurement program implementation process
consists of six phases, which, when fully executed, will ensure continuous use of these measures
for security control performance monitoring and improvement. The process is shown in Figure
6-1.

Figure 6-1. Information Security Measurement Program Implementation Process

6.1

Prepare for Data Collection

Phase 1 of the information security measurement program implementation process, Prepare for
Data Collection, involves activities that are essential for establishing a comprehensive
information security measurement program—including information security measures
identification, definition, development, and selection. The next step is to develop an information
security measurement program implementation plan. 10
Specific implementation steps should be defined based on how data for the measures should be
collected, analyzed, and reported. These steps should be documented in the measurement
program implementation plan. The following items may be included in the plan:

10

The information security measurement program implementation plan can be formal or informal, depending upon the
organization’s needs.

35

•

Audience for the plan;

•

Measurement roles and responsibilities, including responsibilities for data collection
(both soliciting and submitting), analysis, and reporting;

•

Process of measures collection, analysis, and reporting, as tailored to the specific
organizational structure, processes, policies, and procedures;

•

Details of coordination within the Office of the CIO, relating to areas such as risk
assessment, C&A, and FISMA reporting activities;

•

Details of coordination between the SAISO and other functions within the agency (e.g.,
physical security, personnel security, and privacy) to ensure that measures data collection
is streamlined and non-intrusive;

•

Creation or selection of data collection and tracking tools;

•

Modifications of data collection and tracking tools; and

•

Measures summary reporting formats.

Additionally, the information security measurement implementation plan should contain
provisions for continuous monitoring of the information security program. Continuous
monitoring activities include configuration management, information security impact analyses of
changes to the information system, assessment of a subset of security controls, and status
reporting. Sound continuous monitoring practices dictate that the organization establishes
selection criteria for a subset of the security controls employed within the information system for
purposes of continuous monitoring. NIST SP 800-37 provides guidelines on the continuous
monitoring process. NIST SP 800-53A provides guidelines on the assessment of security
controls. Results generated from continuous monitoring provide data necessary to support and
supplement the data collected in Phase 2, and help facilitate corrective action prioritization in
Phase 3.
6.2

Collect Data and Analyze Results

Phase 2 of the information security measurement program implementation process, Collect Data
and Analyze Results, involves activities essential for ensuring that the collected measures are
used to gain an understanding of information system security and identify appropriate
improvement actions. This phase includes the following activities:
•

Collect measures data according to the processes defined in the Measurement
Program Implementation Plan;

•

Aggregate measures as appropriate to derive higher-level measures (e.g., “rolling up”
information system-level measures to derive program-level measures);

36

•

Consolidate collected data and store in a format conducive to data analysis and
reporting—for example, in a database or spreadsheet;

•

Conduct gap analysis to compare collected measurements with targets (if defined)
and identify gaps between actual and desired performance;

•

Identify causes of poor performance; and

•

Identify areas that require improvement.

Causes of poor performance can often be identified by using the data from more than one
measure. For example, determining that the percentage of approved system security plans is
unacceptably low would not be helpful for determining how to correct the problem. To
determine the cause of low compliance, information will need to be obtained regarding the
reasons for the low percentages (e.g., lack of guidelines, insufficient expertise, or conflicting
priorities). This can be collected as separate measures or as implementation evidence for the
percentage of approved system security plans. Once this information is collected and compiled,
corrective actions could be directed at the cause of the problem.
The following are examples of factors contributing to poor security implementation and
effectiveness:
•

Resources—Insufficient human, monetary, or other resources;

•

Training—Lack of appropriate training for personnel installing, administering,
maintaining, or using the information systems;

•

Information system upgrades—Information security patches that have been removed but
not replaced during information system upgrades;

•

Configuration management practices—New or upgraded information systems that are not
configured with required information security settings and patches;

•

Software compatibility—Information security patches or upgrades that are incompatible
with software applications supported by the information system;

•

Awareness and commitment—Lack of management awareness and/or commitment to
information security;

•

Policies and procedures—Lack of policies and procedures required to ensure existence,
use, and audit of required information security functions;

•

Architectures—Poor information system and information security architectures that
render information systems vulnerable; and

37

•

6.3

Inefficient processes—Inefficient planning and implementation processes that influence
measures, including the communication processes necessary to direct organizational
actions.
Identify Corrective Actions

Phase 3 of the information security measurement program implementation process, Identify
Corrective Actions, involves development of a plan to serve as the roadmap for closing the
implementation gap identified in Phase 2. It includes the following activities:

6.4

•

Determine range of corrective actions—Based on results and causation factors, identify
potential corrective actions for each performance issue. These may include changing
information system configurations; training information security staff, information
system administrator staff, or regular users; purchasing information security tools;
changing information system architecture; establishing new processes and procedures;
and updating information security policies.

•

Prioritize corrective actions based on overall risk mitigation goals—Several corrective
actions may apply to a single performance issue; however, some may be inappropriate if
they are too costly or are inconsistent with the magnitude of the problem. Applicable
corrective actions should be prioritized for each performance issue in ascending order of
cost and descending order of impact. The risk management process described in NIST
SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems, or the
corrective action prioritization process described in NIST SP 800-65, Integrating IT
Security into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, should be used to
prioritize corrective actions. If weights were assigned to measures in the Prepare for
Data Collection phase, they should be used to prioritize corrective actions. Alternatively,
priorities may be assigned in the Identify Corrective Actions phase based on the criticality
of implementing specific corrective actions, cost of the actions, and the magnitude of
their impact on the organization’s information security posture. Corrective actions
should be documented in the POA&M for the corresponding information system or
organization and tracked as a part of the continuous monitoring process.

•

Select most appropriate corrective actions—Viable corrective actions from the top of the
prioritized list should be selected for use in a full cost-benefit analysis.
Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources

Phase 4 of the information security measurement program implementation process, Develop
Business Case, and Phase 5, Obtain Resources, address the budgeting cycle for acquiring
resources needed to implement remediation actions identified in Phase 3. The steps involved in
developing a business case are based on industry practices and mandatory guidelines, including
OMB Circular A-11, the Clinger-Cohen Act, and GPRA. Results of the prior three phases will
be included in the business case as supporting evidence.

38

The following activities are generally performed as a part of business case analysis. They are
pursued within the bounds of agency-specific processes to obtain the resources needed to
implement corrective actions, and include:
•

Document mission and objectives (identified during Phase 2 of the measures
development process);

•

Determine the cost and risks of maintaining status quo to use as a baseline for comparing
investment alternatives;

•

Document the information security performance gaps between target performance and
current performance, as evidenced by the current measures collected during Phase 2 of
the information security measurement program implementation process;

•

Estimate the life cycle costs of each corrective action or investment alternative, as
identified in Phase 3 of the information security measurement program implementation
process;

•

Perform sensitivity analysis to determine which variables have the greatest effect on the
cost; 11

•

Characterize benefits that are quantifiable and non-quantifiable returns delivered through
improved performance, based on the prioritization of corrective actions performed in
Phase 3 of the information security measurement program implementation process;

•

Perform risk analysis to assess the likelihood of obstacles and programmatic risks
inherent to a particular alternative; and

•

Prepare budget submission by summarizing key aspects of the business case to accurately
illustrate its merits. 12

Each agency should follow its specific business case guidelines during this phase of the process.
Agencies typically have unique business case processes and life cycle spending thresholds that
determine which investments and budget requests require a formal business case. In general, the
level of effort to develop the business case should correspond with the size and scope of the
funding request. For example, the business case to build and maintain a disaster recovery site
would be more thorough than a business case to establish an account review process.
Regardless of the scope and complexity of the business case, its underlying components and
analysis enable easier completion of internal and external budget requests. A thorough

11

If a small change in the value of a variable causes a large change in the calculation result, the result is said to be sensitive to
that parameter or assumption.

12

See NIST SP 800-65, Integrating IT Security Into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, for more information
on how to prepare appropriate budget request information for corrective actions.

39

examination of the business case will support and facilitate the Obtain Resources phase, which
involves the following activities:

6.5

•

Respond to budget evaluation inquiries;

•

Receive allocated budget;

•

Prioritize available resources (if all requested resources are not allocated); and

•

Assign resources to perform corrective actions.
Apply Corrective Actions

Phase 6 of the information security measurement program implementation process, Apply
Corrective Actions, involves implementing corrective actions in the security program, or in the
technical, management, and operational areas of security controls. The POA&M process is used
to document and monitor the corrective action status.
Iterative data collection, analysis, and reporting will track the progress of corrective actions,
measure improvement, and identify areas where further improvement is needed. The nature of
the cycle monitors progress and ensures that corrective actions are influencing information
system security control implementation in the intended way. Frequent performance
measurements will flag actions that are not implemented as planned or do not have the desired
effect, enabling quick course corrections within the organization to avoid problems that could be
uncovered during external audits, C&A efforts, or related activities.

40

Appendix A: CANDIDATE MEASURES
Devoting sufficient time to establishing information security performance measures is critical
to deriving the maximum value from measuring information security performance.
This section offers a sampling of program-level and system-level measures. The sample
measures include information security programmatic measures, and measures that align with the
minimum security requirements in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200,
Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems, which
correspond to the 17 security control families in NIST SP 800-53. They are not intended for
adoption as a complete set, but are provided as examples that organizations can tailor and adapt
to measure the performance of their information security programs. Examples of tailoring
include specific time frames, implementation evidence, data sources, formulas, reporting
formats, frequency, responsible parties, or adding further fields to the template.
It should be noted that these measures do not completely address the minimum security
requirements from FIPS 200, but will address one or more important aspects of the requirements.
Organizations should look into developing additional measures to complement or replace those
provided in this section if the samples are not appropriate for their needs.
These candidate measures offer examples of specific security controls implemented at the
program level or at the system level and include all measure types—implementation,
effectiveness/efficiency, and impact.

A-1

Measure 1: Security Budget (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Security Budget Measure 1

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Provide resources necessary to properly secure agency
information and information systems.

Measure

Percentage (%) of the agency’s information system budget devoted to information
security
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – SA-2; Allocation of Resources

Measure Type

Impact

Formula

(Information security budget/total agency information technology budget) *100

Target

This should be an organizationally defined percentage.

Implementation
Evidence

1. What is the total information security budget across all agency systems (SA-2)? _____

2. What is the total information technology budget across all agency systems (SA-2)?
_____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO),
Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information
Security Officer [CISO])

•

Information Collector: System Administrator or Information System Security Officer
(ISSO), budget personnel

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO]), external
audiences (e.g., Office of Management and Budget)

Data Source

Exhibit 300s, Exhibit 53s, agency budget documentation

Reporting
Format

Pie chart illustrating the total agency information technology budget and the portion of
that budget devoted to information security

A-2

Measure 2: Vulnerability Management (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Vulnerability Measure 1

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Ensure all vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated.

Measure

Percentage (%) of high 13 vulnerabilities mitigated within organizationally defined time
periods after discovery
NIST SP 800-53 Controls: RA-5; Vulnerability Scanning

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of high vulnerabilities identified and mitigated within targeted time frame
during the time period /number of high vulnerabilities identified within the time period)
*100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Number of high vulnerabilities identified across the enterprise during the time period
(RA-5)? _____

2. Number of high vulnerabilities mitigated across the enterprise during the time period
(RA-5)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO]), System
Owner

•

Information Collector: System Administrator or Information System Security Officer
(ISSO)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Vulnerability scanning software, audit logs, vulnerability management systems, patch
management systems, change management records

Reporting
Format

Stacked bar chart illustrating the percentage of high vulnerabilities closed within targeted
time frames after discovery over several reporting periods

13

The National Vulnerability Database (NVD) provides severity rankings of “Low” “Medium” and “High” for all Common
Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) in the database. The NVD is accessible at http://nvd.nist.gov.

A-3

Measure 3: Access Control (AC) (system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Remote Access Control Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Restrict information, system, and component access to
individuals or machines that are identifiable, known, credible, and authorized.

Measure

Percentage (%) of remote access points used to gain unauthorized access
NIST SP 800-53 Controls: AC-17; Remote Access

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of remote access points used to gain unauthorized access/total number of remote
access points) *100

Target

This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does the organization use automated tools to maintain an up-to-date network diagram
that identifies all remote access points (CM-2)?
Yes

No

2. How many remote access points exist in the organization’s network? _____
3. Does the organization employ Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to monitor traffic
traversing remote access points (SI-4)?
Yes

No

4. Does the organization collect and review audit logs associated with all remote access
points (AU-6)?
Yes

No

5. Does the organization maintain a security incident database that identifies standardized
incident categories for each incident (IR-5)?
Yes

No

6. Based on reviews of the incident database, IDS logs and alerts, and/or appropriate
remote access point log files, how many access points have been used to gain
unauthorized access within the reporting period? ______
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)

•

Information Collector: System Administrator or Information System Security Officer
(ISSO)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Incident database, audit logs, network diagrams, IDS logs and alerts

Reporting
Format

Stacked bar chart, by month, which illustrates the percentage of remote access points used
for unauthorized access versus the total number of remote access points

A-4

Measure 4: Awareness and Training (AT) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Security Training Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

•
Measure

Strategic Goal: Ensure a high-quality work force supported by modern and secure
infrastructure and operational capabilities.
Information Security Goal: Ensure that organization personnel are adequately trained
to carry out their assigned information security-related duties and responsibilities.

Percentage (%) of information system security personnel that have received security
training
NIST SP 800-53 Controls: AT-3: Security Training

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of information system security personnel that have completed security training
within the past year/total number of information system security personnel) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Are significant security responsibilities defined with qualifications criteria and
documented in policy (AT-1 and PS-2)?
Yes

No

2. Are records kept of which employees have significant security responsibilities (AT-3)?
Yes

No

3. How many employees in your agency (or agency component, as applicable) have
significant security responsibilities (AT-3)? _____
4. Are training records maintained (AT-4)? (Training records indicate the training that
specific employees have received.)
Yes

No

5. How many of those with significant security responsibilities have received the required
training (AT-4)? _____
6. If all personnel have not received training, state all reasons that apply (AT-4):
Insufficient funding
Insufficient time
Courses unavailable
Employee has not registered
Other (specify) ______________
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Training Manager)

A-5

Field
Parties

Data
•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Information System Security
Officer [ISSO], Training Manager)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Training and awareness tracking records

Reporting
Format

Pie chart illustrating the percentage of security personnel that have received training
versus those who have not received training. If performance is below target, pie chart
illustrating causes of performance falling short of targets

A-6

Measure 5: Audit and Accountability (AU) (system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Audit Record Review Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Create, protect, and retain information system audit
records to the extent needed to enable the monitoring, analysis, investigation, and
reporting of unlawful, unauthorized, or inappropriate activity.

Measure

Average frequency of audit records review and analysis for inappropriate activity
NIST SP 800-53 Controls: AU-6: Audit Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

Average frequency during reporting period

Target

This should be a high frequency defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

For each system:
1. Is logging activated on the system (AU-2)?
Yes

No

2. Does the organization have clearly defined criteria for what constitutes evidence of
“inappropriate” activity within system audit logs?
Yes

No

3. For the reporting period, how many system audit logs have been reviewed within the
following time frames for inappropriate activity (choose the nearest time period for each
system) (AU-3 and AU-6):
Within the past day _____
Within the past week _____
2 weeks to 1 month _____
1 month to 6 months _____
Over 6 months _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: daily)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owner)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrator)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Audit log reports

Reporting
Format

Bar chart showing the number of systems with average audit log reviews in each of the
five categories within the Implementation Evidence field

A-7

Measure 6: Certification, Accreditation, and Security Assessments (CA) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

C&A Completion Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Ensure all information systems have been certified and
accredited as required.

Measure

Percentage (%) of new systems that have completed certification and accreditation
(C&A) prior to their implementation
NIST SP 800-53 Control: CA-6: Security Accreditation

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of new systems with complete C&A packages with Authorizing Official [AO]
approval prior to implementation)/(total number of new systems) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does your agency (or agency component, if applicable) maintain a complete and up-todate system inventory?
Yes

No

2. Is there a formal C&A process within your agency (CA-1)?
Yes

No

3. If the answer to Question 2 is yes, are system development projects required to
complete C&A prior to implementation (CA-1)?
Yes

No

4. How many new systems have been implemented during the reporting period? _____
5. How many systems indicated in Question 4 have received an authority to operate prior
to implementation (CA-6)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Authorizing Official [AO])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owners)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

System inventory, system C&A documentation

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of new systems with AO-approved C&A packages
versus new systems without AO-approved C&A packages

A-8

Measure 7: Configuration Management (CM) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Configuration Changes Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic information
infrastructure.

•

Information Security Goal: Establish and maintain baseline configurations and
inventories of organizational information systems (including hardware, software,
firmware, and documentation) throughout the respective system development life
cycles.

Measure

Percentage (%) approved and implemented configuration changes identified in the latest
automated baseline configuration
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – CM-2: Baseline Configuration and CM-3: Configuration
Change Control

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of approved and implemented configuration changes identified in the latest
automated baseline configuration/total number of configuration changes identified
through automated scans) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does the organization manage configuration changes to information systems using an
organizationally approved process (CM-3)?
Yes

No

2. Does the organization use automated scanning to identify configuration changes that
were implemented on its systems and networks (CM-2, Enhancement 2)?
Yes

No

3. If yes, how many configuration changes were identified through automated scanning
over the last reporting period (CM-3)? _____
4. How many change control requests were approved and implemented over the last
reporting period (CM 3)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Configuration Manager)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Information System Security
Officer (ISSO), System Owner, System Administrator)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO]), Authorizing Official [AO],
Configuration Control Board)

Data Source

System security plans, configuration management database, security tool logs

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of approved and implemented changes documented in
the latest baseline configuration versus the percentage of changes not documented in the
latest baseline configuration

A-9

Measure 8: Contingency Planning (CP) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Contingency Plan Testing Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Establish, maintain, and effectively implement plans for
emergency response, backup operations, and post-disaster recovery for
organizational information systems to ensure the availability of critical information
resources and continuity of operations in emergency situations.

Measure

Percentage (%) of information systems that have conducted annual contingency plan
testing
NIST SP 800-53 Controls: CP-4: Contingency Plan Testing and Exercises

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of information systems that have conducted annual contingency plans
testing/number of information systems in the system inventory) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many information systems are in the system inventory? _____
2. How many information systems have an approved contingency plan (CP-2)? _____
3. How many contingency plans were successfully tested within the past year (CP-4)?
_____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Contingency Plan Manager)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, System
Administrator)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Contingency Plan testing results

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of systems that conducted annual contingency plan
testing versus the percentage of systems that have not conducted annual contingency plan
testing

A-10

Measure 9: Identification and Authentication (IA) (system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

User Accounts Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: All system users are identified and authenticated in
accordance with information security policy.

Measure

Percentage (%) of users with access to shared accounts
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – AC-2: Account Management, AC-3: Access Enforcement,
and IA-2: User Identification and Authentication

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of users with access to shared accounts/total number of users) *100

Target

This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many users have access to the system (IA-2)? _____
2. How many users have access to shared accounts (AC-2)? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, System
Administrator)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrator)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Configuration Management Database, Access Control List, System-Produced User ID
Lists

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of users with access to shared accounts versus the
percentage of users without access to shared accounts

A-11

Measure 10: Incident Response (IR) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Incident Response Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•
•

Measure

Strategic Goal: Make accurate, timely information on the organization’s programs
and services readily available.
Information Security Goal: Track, document, and report incidents to appropriate
organizational officials and/or authorities.

Percentage (%) of incidents reported within required time frame per applicable incident
category (the measure will be computed for each incident category described in
Implementation Evidence)
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – IR-6: Incident Reporting

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

For each incident category (number of incidents reported on time/total number of
reported incidents) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many incidents were reported during the period (IR-6)?
Category 1 – Unauthorized Access? _____
Category 2 – Denial of Service? _____
Category 3 – Malicious Code? _____
Category 4 – Improper Usage? _____
Category 5 – Scans/Probes/Attempted Access? _____
Category 6 – Investigation? _____
2. How many incidents involving personally identifiable information (PII) were reported
during the period (IR-6)? _____
3. Of the incidents reported, how many were reported within the prescribed time frame
for their category, according to the time frames established by US-CERT (IR-6)?
Category 1 – Unauthorized Access? _____
Category 2 – Denial of Service? _____
Category 3 – Malicious Code? _____
Category 4 – Improper Usage? _____
Category 5 – Scans/Probes/Attempted Access? _____
Category 6 – Investigation? _____
4. Of the PII incidents reported, how many were reported within the prescribed time
frame for their category, according to the time frames established by US-CERT and/or
OMB Memorandum(s) (IR-6)? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

A-12

Field
Responsible
Parties

Data
•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Computer Security Incident
Response Team [CSIRT])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, Information
Security Officer [ISSO], CSIRT)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Incident logs, incident tracking database (if available)

Reporting
Format

For one-time snapshot – stacked bar chart illustrating the proportion of reported incidents
per category that were reported on time
For trends – line chart where each line represents an individual category plus a line
representing 100 percent

A-13

Measure 11: Maintenance (MA) (system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Maintenance Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic information
infrastructure.

•

Information Security Goal: Perform periodic and timely maintenance on
organizational information systems and provide effective controls on the tools,
techniques, mechanisms, and personnel used to conduct information system
maintenance.

Measure

Percentage (%) of system components that undergo maintenance in accordance with
formal maintenance schedules
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – MA-2: Controlled Maintenance and MA-6: Timely
Maintenance

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of system components that undergo maintenance according to formal
maintenance schedules/total number of system components) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does the system have a formal maintenance schedule (MA-2)?
Yes

No

2. How many components are contained within the system (CM-8)? _____
3. How many components underwent maintenance in accordance with the formal
maintenance schedule (MA-6)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owner)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrator)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Maintenance schedule, maintenance logs

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of system components receiving maintenance in
accordance with the formal maintenance schedule versus the percentage of system
components not receiving maintenance in accordance with the formal maintenance
schedule over the specified period

A-14

Measure 12: Media Protection (MP) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Media Sanitization Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Sanitize or destroy information system media before
disposal or release for reuse.

Measure

Percentage (%) of media that passes sanitization procedures testing for FIPS 199 highimpact systems
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – MP-6: Media Sanitization and Disposal

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of media that passes sanitization procedures testing/total number of media
tested) * 100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Is there a policy for sanitizing media before it is discarded or reused (MP-1)?
Yes

No

2. Does the organization test media sanitization procedures for FIPS 199 high-impact
systems (MP-6, Enhancement 2)?
Yes

No

3. Number of media that successfully passed sanitization testing for FIPS 199 highimpact systems (MP-6, Enhancement 2)? _____
4. Total number of media tested for FIPS 199 high-impact systems (MP-6, Enhancement
2)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Facility Security Officer)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, Information
System Security Officer (ISSO])

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information
Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Sanitization testing results

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of media passing sanitization procedures testing
versus the percentage of media not passing sanitization procedures testing over the
specified period

A-15

Measure 13: Physical and Environmental (PE) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Physical Security Incidents Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Integrate physical and information security protection
mechanisms to ensure appropriate protection of the organization’s information
resources.

Measure

Percentage (%) of physical security incidents allowing unauthorized entry into facilities
containing information systems
NIST SP 800-53 Control – PE-6: Monitoring Physical Access

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of physical security incidents allowing unauthorized entry into facilities
containing information systems/total number of physical security incidents) *100

Target

This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many physical security incidents occurred during the specified period (PE-6)?
_____
2. How many of the physical security incidents allowed unauthorized entry into facilities
containing information systems (PE-6)? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Physical Security Officer)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Computer Security Incident
Response Team [CSIRT])

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Physical security incident reports, physical access control logs

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the physical security incidents allowing unauthorized entry into
facilities containing information systems versus the total number of physical security
incidents

A-16

Measure 14: Planning (PL) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Planning Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products..

•

Information Security Goal: Develop, document, periodically update, and implement
security plans for organizational information systems that describe the security
controls in place or planned for information systems, and the rules of behavior for
individuals accessing these systems.

Measure

Percentage of employees who are authorized access to information systems only after
they sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understood rules of behavior
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – PL-4: Rules of Behavior and AC-2: Account Management

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of users who are granted system access after signing rules of behavior/total
number of users with system access) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many users access the system (AC-2)? _____
2. How many users signed rules of behavior acknowledgements (PL-4)? _____
3. How many users have been granted access to the information system only after signing
rules of behavior acknowledgements? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, Information
System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrator,
System Owner)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Repositories containing rules of behavior records

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of users who have signed rules of behavior
acknowledgement forms prior to being granted information system access to those users
who have accessed the system without signed rules of behavior acknowledgement forms

A-17

Measure 15: Personnel Security (PS) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Personnel Security Screening Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Ensure that individuals occupying positions of
responsibility within organizations are trustworthy and meet established security
criteria for those positions.

Measure

Percentage (%) of individuals screened before being granted access to organizational
information and information systems
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – AC-2: Account Management and PS-3: Personnel Screening

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of individuals screened/total number of individuals with access) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many individuals have been granted access to organizational information and
information systems (AC-2)? _____
2. What is the number of individuals who have completed personnel screening (PS-3)?
_____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Human Resources)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrators,
System Owners, Information System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Clearance records, access control lists

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of individuals screened versus the total number of
individuals

A-18

Measure 16: Risk Assessment (RA) (system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Risk Assessment Vulnerability Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and accountability
for personnel, facilities, and products.

•

Information Security Goal: Periodically assess the risk to organizational operations
(including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational assets, and
individuals resulting from the operation of organizational information systems.

Measure

Percentage (%) of vulnerabilities remediated within organization-specified time frames
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – RA-5: Vulnerability Scanning and CA-5: Plan of Actions
and Milestones

Measure Type

Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of vulnerabilities remediated according to POA&M schedule/total number of
POA&M-documented vulnerabilities identified through vulnerability scans) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does the organization conduct periodic vulnerability scans (RA-5)?
Yes

No

2. What is the periodicity of vulnerability scans (RA-5)?
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Other ____________
3. Does the organization’s POA&M process require vulnerabilities identified through
vulnerability scanning to be documented in appropriate system POA&Ms (CA-5)?
Yes

No

4. How many vulnerabilities were identified through vulnerability scanning and entered
into applicable POA&Ms (CA-5)? _____
5. How many of the vulnerabilities from Question 4 were remediated on schedule
according to their POA&Ms (CA-5)? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

A-19

Field
Responsible
Parties

Data
•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owners, Information
System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrators,
System Owners, Information System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

POA&Ms, vulnerability scanning reports

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of vulnerabilities remediated on schedule versus the
percentage of vulnerabilities not remediated on schedule

A-20

Measure 17: System and Services Acquisition (SA) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

Service Acquisition Contract Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic information
infrastructure.

•

Information Security Goal: Ensure third-party providers employ adequate security
measures to protect information, applications, and/or services outsourced from the
organization.

Measure

Percentage (%) of system and service acquisition contracts that include security
requirements and/or specifications
NIST SP 800-53 Control – SA-4: Acquisitions

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of system and service acquisition contracts that include security requirements
and specifications/total number of system and service acquisition contracts) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many active service acquisition contracts does the organization have? _____
2. How many active service acquisition contracts include security requirements and
specifications (SA-4)? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Contracting Officer)

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Contracting Officer’s
Technical Representative, System Owner)

•

Information Customer: Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, System
Owner, Procurement Officer, Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

Service acquisition contracts

Reporting
Format

Pie chart comparing the percentage of system and service acquisition contracts that
include security requirements and/or specifications versus the percentage of system and
service acquisition contracts that do not include security requirements and/or
specifications

A-21

Measure 18: System and Communications Protection (SC) (program-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

System and Communication Protection Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out
by the organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic information
infrastructure.

•

Information Security Goal: Allocate sufficient resources to adequately protect
electronic information infrastructure.

Measure

Percentage of mobile computers and devices that perform all cryptographic operations
using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules operating in approved modes of
operation
NIST SP 800-53 Control – SC-13: Use of Validated Cryptography

Measure Type

Implementation

Formula

(Number of mobile computers and devices that perform all cryptographic operations
using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules operating in approved modes of
operation/total number of mobile computers and devices) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. How many mobile computers and devices are used in the organization (CM-8)? _____
2. How many mobile computers and devices employ cryptography (CM-8)? _____
a. How many mobile computers and devices employ FIPS 140-2 validated encryption
modules (SC-13)? _____
b. How many of those mobile computers and devices perform all cryptographic
operations using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules operating in approved
modes of operation (SC-13)? _____
3. How many mobile computers and devices have cryptography implementation waivers
(CM-8)? _____

Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible
Parties

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owners, Information
System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Administrators,
System Owners, Information System Security Officer [ISSO])

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source

System security plans

Reporting
Format

Pie chart illustrating the number of mobile computers and devices that perform all
cryptographic operations (including key generation) using FIPS 140-2 validated
cryptographic modules operating in approved modes of operation as a percentage of the
total number of mobile computers and devices

A-22

Measure 19: System and Information Integrity (SI) (program-level and system-level)
Field

Data

Measure ID

System and Information Integrity 1 (or a unique identifier to be filled out by the
organization)

Goal

•

Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic information
infrastructure.

•

Information Security Goal: Provide protection from malicious code at appropriate
locations within organizational information systems, monitor information systems
security alerts and advisories, and take appropriate actions in response.

Measure

Percentage (%) of operating system vulnerabilities for which patches have been applied
or that have been otherwise mitigated
NIST SP 800-53 Controls – SI-2: Flaw Remediation

Measure Type

Implementation and Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula

(Number of vulnerabilities addressed in distributed alerts and advisories for which
patches have been implemented, determined as non-applicable, or granted a waiver/total
number of applicable vulnerabilities identified through alerts and advisories and through
vulnerability scans) *100

Target

This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation
Evidence

1. Does the organization distribute alerts and advisories (SI-5)?
Yes

No

2. How many vulnerabilities were identified by analyzing distributed alerts and advisories
(SI-5)? _____
3. How many vulnerabilities were identified through vulnerability scans (RA-5)? _____
4. How many patches or work-arounds were implemented to address identified
vulnerabilities (SI-2)? _____
5. How many vulnerabilities were determined to be non-applicable (SI-2)? _____
6. How many waivers have been granted for weaknesses that could not be remediated by
implementing patches or work-arounds? _____
Frequency

Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: weekly)
Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

Responsible
Parties

Data Source

•

Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Computer Security Incident
Response Team [CSIRT])

•

Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Information System Security
Officer [ISSO], System Owners)

•

Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System
Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,
Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Vulnerability scans, POA&Ms, repositories of alerts and advisories, risk assessments

A-23

Field
Reporting
Format

Data
Stacked bar chart with total number of applicable vulnerabilities composed of percentages
of number of vulnerabilities addressed in distributed alerts and advisories for which
patches have been determined as non-applicable, have been implemented, have had a
waiver granted, or other

A-24

Appendix B: ACRONYMS
AC
AO
AT
AU
C&A
CFO
CIO
CISO
CM
COTS
CP
CPIC
CSIRT
FEA
FIPS
FISCAM
FISMA
FY
GAO
GOTS
GPEA
GPRA
ID
IG
IR
ISSEA
ISSO
ITL
MP
NIST
OMB
PE
PL
POA&M
PRM
PS
RA
SA
SAISO
SC
SDLC
SI
SP
USC

Access Control
Authorizing Official
Awareness and Training
Audit and Accountability
Certification and Accreditation
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Information Officer
Chief Information Security Officer
Configuration Management
Commercial Off-The-Shelf
Contingency Planning
Capital Planning and Investment Control
Computer Security Incident Response Team
Federal Enterprise Architecture
Federal Information Processing Standards
Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual
Federal Information Security Management Act
Fiscal Year
Government Accountability Office
Government Off-The-Shelf
Government Paperwork Elimination Act
Government Performance and Results Act
Identification
Inspector General
Incident Response
International Systems Security Engineering Association
Information System Security Officer
Information Technology Laboratory
Media Protection
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Office of Management and Budget
Physical and Environmental
Planning
Plan of Action and Milestones
Performance Reference Model
Physical Security
Risk Assessment
System and Services Acquisition
Senior Agency Information Security Officer
System and Communications Protection
System Development Life Cycle
System and Information Integrity
Special Publication
United States Code
B-1

US-CERT
XML

United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
Extensible Markup Language

B-2

Appendix C: REFERENCES
Bartol N., Givans N., Measuring the “Goodness” of Security, 2nd International Systems Security
Engineering Association (ISSEA) Conference Proceedings, February 2001.
Bartol N., Information Security Performance Measurement: Live, 3rd ISSEA Conference
Proceedings, March 2002.
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (formerly known as the Information Technology Management
Reform Act), February 10, 1996.
E-Government Act, Title III—Federal Information Security Management Act (P.L 107-347),
December 2002.
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 199, Standards for Security Categorization of
Federal Information and Information Systems, February 2004.
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 200, Minimum Security Requirements for
Federal Information and Information Systems, March 2006.
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398).
General Accounting Office, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM),
GAO/AIMD-12.19.6, January 1996.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (PL. 103-62).
National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report 7298, Glossary of Key
Information Security Terms, April, 2006.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-18, Guide for
Developing Security Plans and Information Technology Systems, February 2006.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management
Guide for Information Technology Systems, June 2001.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-37, Guide for the
Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems, May 2004.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53, Recommended
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems, December 2007..
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53A, Guide for
Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems, June 2008.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-65, Integrating Security
into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, January 2005.

C-1

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-100, Information
Security Handbook: A Guide for Managers, October 2006.
Office of Management and Budget, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,”
Appendix III to OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, February
8, 1996.
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and
Annual Program Performance Reports (updated annually).

C-2

Appendix D: SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINIMUM SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 14

14

•

Access Control (AC): Organizations must limit information system access to authorized
users, processes acting on behalf of authorized users, or devices (including other
information systems), and to the types of transactions and functions that authorized users
are permitted to exercise.

•

Awareness and Training (AT): Organizations must: (i) ensure that managers and users
of organizational information systems are made aware of the information security risks
associated with their activities and of the applicable laws, Executive orders, directives,
policies, standards, instructions, regulations, or procedures related to the information
security of organizational information systems; and (ii) ensure that organizational
personnel are adequately trained to carry out their assigned information security-related
duties and responsibilities.

•

Audit and Accountability (AU): Organizations must: (i) create, protect, and retain
information system audit records to the extent needed to enable the monitoring, analysis,
investigation, and reporting of unlawful, unauthorized, or inappropriate information
system activity; and (ii) ensure that the actions of individual information system users can
be uniquely traced to those users so that they can be held accountable for their actions.

•

Certification, Accreditation, and Security Assessments (CA): Organizations must: (i)
periodically assess the security controls in organizational information systems to
determine if the controls are effective in their application; (ii) develop and implement
plans of action designed to correct deficiencies and reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities in
organizational information systems; (iii) authorize the operation of organizational
information systems and any associated information system connections; and (iv) monitor
information system security controls on an ongoing basis to ensure the continued
effectiveness of the controls.

•

Configuration Management (CM): Organizations must: (i) establish and maintain
baseline configurations and inventories of organizational information systems (including
hardware, software, firmware, and documentation) throughout the respective information
system development life cycles; and (ii) establish and enforce information security
configuration settings for information technology products employed in organizational
information systems.

•

Contingency Planning (CP): Organizations must establish, maintain, and effectively
implement plans for emergency response, backup operations, and post-disaster recovery
for organizational information systems to ensure the availability of critical information
resources and continuity of operations in emergency situations.

•

Identification and Authentication (IA): Organizations must identify information
system users, processes acting on behalf of users, or devices and authenticate (or verify)

FIPS 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems, March 2006.

D-1

the identities of those users, processes, or devices, as a prerequisite to allowing access to
organizational information systems.
•

Incident Response (IR): Organizations must: (i) establish an operational incident
handling capability for organizational information systems that includes adequate
preparation, detection, analysis, containment, recovery, and user response activities; and
(ii) track, document, and report incidents to appropriate organizational officials and/or
authorities.

•

Maintenance (MA): Organizations must: (i) perform periodic and timely maintenance
on organizational information systems; and (ii) provide effective controls on the tools,
techniques, mechanisms, and personnel used to conduct information system maintenance.

•

Media Protection (MP): Organizations must: (i) protect information system media, both
paper and digital; (ii) limit access to information on information system media to
authorized users; and (iii) sanitize or destroy information system media before disposal or
release for reuse.

•

Physical and Environmental Protection (PE): Organizations must: (i) limit physical
access to information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to
authorized individuals; (ii) protect the physical plant and support infrastructure for
information systems; (iii) provide supporting utilities for information systems; (iv)
protect information systems against environmental hazards; and (v) provide appropriate
environmental controls in facilities containing information systems.

•

Planning (PL): Organizations must develop, document, periodically update, and
implement system security plans for organizational information systems that describe the
security controls in place or planned for the information systems and the rules of behavior
for individuals accessing the information systems.

•

Personnel Security (PS): Organizations must: (i) ensure that individuals occupying
positions of responsibility within organizations (including third-party service providers)
are trustworthy and meet established information security criteria for those positions; (ii)
ensure that organizational information and information systems are protected during
personnel actions such as terminations and transfers; and (iii) employ formal sanctions
for personnel failing to comply with organizational information security policies and
procedures.

•

Risk Assessment (RA): Organizations must periodically assess the risk to organizational
operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizational assets, and
individuals resulting from the operation of organizational information systems and the
associated processing, storage, or transmission of organizational information.

•

System and Services Acquisition (SA): Organizations must: (i) allocate sufficient
resources to adequately protect organizational information systems; (ii) employ
information system development life cycle processes that incorporate information
security considerations; (iii) employ software usage and installation restrictions; and (iv)
ensure that third-party providers employ adequate information security measures to
protect information, applications, and/or services outsourced from the organization.

D-2

•

System and Communications Protection (SC): Organizations must: (i) monitor,
control, and protect organizational communications (i.e., information transmitted or
received by organizational information systems) at the external boundaries and key
internal boundaries of the information systems; and (ii) employ architectural designs,
software development techniques, and information systems engineering principles that
promote effective information security within organizational information systems.

•

System and Information Integrity (SI): Organizations must: (i) identify, report, and
correct information and information system flaws in a timely manner; (ii) provide
protection from malicious code at appropriate locations within organizational information
systems; and (iii) monitor information system security alerts and advisories and take
appropriate actions in response.

D-3



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : No
Author                          : NIST Computer Security Division (CSD)
Company                         : EOP
Create Date                     : 2008:07:21 13:34:31-04:00
Keywords                        :  NIST SP 800-55 Revision 1, Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security, Information Security, Metrics, Measures, Security Controls, Performance, Reports
Modify Date                     : 2012:02:06 14:52:35-05:00
Source Modified                 : D:20080717153317
Language                        : en
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
XMP Toolkit                     : Image::ExifTool 8.99
Creator                         : Chew, E.; Swanson, M.; Stine, K. M.; Bartol, N.; Brown, A.; Robinson, W.
Description                     : This document provides guidance on how an organization, through the use of metrics, identifies the adequacy of in-place security controls, policies, and procedures. It provides an approach to help management decide where to invest in additional security protection resources or identify and evaluate nonproductive controls. It explains the metric development and implementation process and how it can also be used to adequately justify security control investments. The results of an effective metric program can provide useful data for directing the allocation of information security resources and should simplify the preparation of performance-related reports.
Format                          : application/pdf
Identifier                      : 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-55r1
Rights                          : Special Publications of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is a publication of the U.S. Government. The papers are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright in the United States. However, please pay special attention to the individual works to make sure there are no copyright restrictions indicated. Individual works may require securing other permissions from the original copyright holder.
Title                           : Performance measurement guide for information security
Producer                        : Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 (Windows)
Creator Tool                    : Acrobat PDFMaker 8.1 for Word
Metadata Date                   : 2012:02:06 14:52:35-05:00
Document ID                     : uuid:626b6ab1-2e5a-4b34-94cb-580c0e406019
Instance ID                     : uuid:2609cb57-d2ba-4afe-af35-1da6cea4e80c
Page Layout                     : OneColumn
Page Count                      : 80

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools