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

User Manual:

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
3. INFORMATION SECURITY MEASURES BACKGROUND
4. LEGISLATIVE AND STRATEGIC DRIVERS
5. MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
6. INFORMATION SECURITY MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Performance M

NIST Special Publication 800-55 Revision 1

easurement 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

nd Technology

ship for the Nation’s

ce data, proof of

ductive use of

strative,

s 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.

The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards a

(NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leader

measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, referen

concept implementations, and technical analyses to advance the development and pro

information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of management, admini

technical, and physical standards and guideline

Authority

This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in

nagement Act

rements, and for

t such standards and

security systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements

ency

s. Supplemental

vided in A-130, Appendix III.

y nongovernmental

tion would be

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.

furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Ma

(FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347.

NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum requi

providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, bu

guidelines shall not apply to national

of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Section 8b(3), Securing Ag

Information Systems, as analyzed in A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Section

information is pro

This guideline has been prepared for use by federal agencies. It may also be used b

organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright regulations. (Attribu

appreciated by NIST.)

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 en materials, or equipment are necessarily the

best available for the purpose.

tities,

iii

Acknowledgements

zabeth Lennon (NIST),

) who reviewed

gratefully

ciate 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.

The authors wish to thank Joan Hash (NIST), Arnold Johnson (NIST), Eli

Karen Scarfone (NIST), Kelley Dempsey (NIST), and Karen Quigg (MITRE

drafts of this document and/or contributed to its development. The authors also

acknowledge and appre

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E................... VIII

................... ......1

.................. .....1

.................. .....2

..........................4

.....................5

R .................. .....6

................... ......6

.................. .....7

................... ......8

3. .................. .....9

.................. .....9

.................. ...10

.................. ...11

.................. ...13

.................. ...14

.................. ...15

................... ....16

.................. ...17

3 .................. ...17

.................. ...19

L................... ....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

XECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. . ...

2.4 Program Manager/Information System Owner...................................... .

....

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... . .

1.1 Purpose and Scope.............................................................................. . ...

1.2 Audience ............................................................................................. . ...

...

1.3 History................................................................................................. .

1.4 Critical Success Factors...................................................................................................3

1.5 Relationship to Other NIST Documents................................................

1.6 Document Organization..............................................................................

2. OLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES....................................................... . ...

2.1 Agency Head....................................................................................... . .

2.2 Chief Information Officer .................................................................. . .

2.3 Senior Agency Information Security Officer...................................... . ...

2.5 Information System Security Officer................................................ . .

2.6 Other Related Roles.......................................................................... . .

INFORMATION SECURITY MEASURES BACKGROUND.......... . ...

3.1 Definition.......................................................................................... . ...

3.2 Benefits of Using Measures.............................................................. . ...

...

3.3 Types of Measures............................................................................ . ...3.3.1 Implementation Measures............................................................. . ...3.3.2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Measures............................................... . ...3

...

.3.3 Impact Measures........................................................................... . ...3.4 Measurement Considerations............................................................ .

3.4.1 Organizational Considerations...................................................... .

3.4.2 Manageability ............................................................................................................15

3.4.3 Data Management Concerns......................................................... .

3.4.4 Automation of Measurement Data Collection.............................. . .

3.5 Information Security Measurement Program Scope......................... .

3 ...

...

.5.1 Individual Information Systems.................................................... . ....5.2 System Development Life Cycle .................................................. . ...3.5.3 Enterprise-Wide Programs............................................................ .

.4. EGISLATIVE AND STRATEGIC DRIVERS.................................. .

5.2 Goals and Objectives Definition....................................................... . .......

....

......

.....

......

.................. ...26

.................. ...27

.................. ...28

.................. ...29

5 .................. ...29

5 ................... ....30

................... ....31

.................. ...33

I N....................35

.................. ...35

.................. ...36

.................. .38

...................

APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES............................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINIMUM SECURITY REQUIREMENTS .D-1

5.3 Information Security Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Review . ...

5.4 Information Security Program Implementation Review................... . ...

...

5.5 Measures Development and Selection.............................................. . ...5.5.1 Measures Development Approach................................................ . ....5.2 Measures Prioritization and Selection .......................................... . ..5.3 Establishing Performance Targets ................................................ .

5.6 Measures Development Template..................................................... . .

5.7 Feedback Within the Measures Development Process..................... . ...

6. NFORMATION SECURITY MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTAT

6.1 Prepare for Data Collection .............................................................. . ...

6.2 Collect Data and Analyze Results..................................................... . ...

6.3 Identify Corrective Actions............................................................. . .....

6.4 Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources................................ . .....

6.5 Apply Corrective Actions..............................................................................................40

APPENDIX A: CANDIDATE MEASURES .............................................. . .. A-1

LIST OF FIGURES

.................. .....3

................... ....25

Figure 5-2. Information Security Measures Trend Example .........................................................31

Figure 6-1. Information Security Measurement Program Implementation Process......................35

Table 1. Measurement During System Development....................................................................18

Table 2. Measures Template and Instructions ...............................................................................32

Figure 1-1. Information Security Measurement Program Structure................. .....

....

...

Figure 3-1. Information Security Program Maturity and Types of Measureme .........................12

Figure 5-1. Information Security Measures Development Process.................. . .

LIST OF TABLES

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

entation of measures

ate the

upporting information

prove performance,

levant

cy, and

’s success in

rocess described in this guide

tionship between

agency mission,

n Act, the

k Elimination Act

t (FISMA)—cite information

nce measurement in

tion to legislative compliance, agencies can use performance

measures as management tools in their internal improvement efforts and link implementation of

ts.

ent and implementation of an

d numbers);

information security processes should be considered for measurement;

d directing resources.

easures are

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.

This document is a guide to assist in the development, selection, and implem

to be used at the information system and program levels. These measures indic

effectiveness of security controls applied to information systems and s

security programs. Such measures are used to facilitate decision making, im

and increase accountability through the collection, analysis, and reporting of re

performance-related data—providing a way to tie the implementation, efficien

effectiveness of information system and program security controls to an agency

achieving its mission. The performance measures development p

will assist agency information security practitioners in establishing a rela

information system and program security activities under their purview and the

helping to demonstrate the value of information security to their organization.

A number of existing laws, rules, and regulations—including the Clinger-Cohe

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Government Paperwor

(GPEA), and the Federal Information Security Management Ac

performance measurement in general, and information security performa

particular, as a requirement. In addi

their information security programs to agency-level strategic planning effor

The following factors must be considered during developm

information security measurement program:

• Measures must yield quantifiable information (percentages, averages, an

• Data that supports the measures needs to be readily obtainable;

• Only repeatable

and

• Measures must be useful for tracking performance an

The measures development process described in this document ensures that m

developed with the purpose of identifying causes of poor performance and pointing to

appropriate corrective actions.

viii

ful for

ent types of

ary focus of information security measures shifts

as the implementation of security controls matures.

The types of measures that can realistically be obtained, and that can also be use

performance improvement, depend on the maturity of the agency’s information security program

and the information system’s security control implementation. Although differ

measures can be used simultaneously, the prim

1. INTRODUCTION

gulatory, financial,

ions cite information

ent in

e Clinger-Cohen Act, the Government

mination Act (GPEA), and

tion security

rformance

sures as

on of their

rmation security

and accountability

ata. They provide

ty controls to an

in its mission-critical activities. The performance measures development

is document will assist agency information security practitioners in

ship between information system and program security activities under

f information security

plementation of

elated activities. It

entifies the adequacy

h to help

es, identify and

ontrols for continuous

cesses and how

nd support risk-

program can

and should

entation 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

The requirement to measure information security performance is driven by re

and organizational reasons. A number of existing laws, rules, and regulat

performance measurement in general, and information security performance measurem

particular, as a requirement. These laws include th

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Government Paperwork Eli

the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

While these laws, rules, and regulations are important drivers for informa

measurement, equally compelling are the benefits that information security pe

measurement can yield for organizations. Agencies can use performance mea

management tools in their internal improvement efforts and link implementati

information security programs to agency-level strategic planning efforts. Info

measures are used to facilitate decision making and improve performance

through collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related d

the means for tying the implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of securi

agency’s success

process described in th

establishing a relation

their purview and the agency mission, helping to demonstrate the value o

to their organization.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This document is a guide for the specific development, selection, and im

information system-level and program-level measures to indicate the implementation,

efficiency/effectiveness, and impact of security controls, and other security-r

provides guidelines on how an organization, through the use of measures, id

of in-place security controls, policies, and procedures. It provides an approac

management decide where to invest in additional information security resourc

evaluate nonproductive security controls, and prioritize security c

monitoring. It explains the measurement development and implementation pro

measures can be used to adequately justify information security investments a

based decisions. The results of an effective information security measurement

provide useful data for directing the allocation of information security resources

simplify the preparation of performance-related reports. Successful implem

contributes to accomplishing agency strategic goals and objectives. Performance m

developed according to this guide will enhance the a easures

bility of agencies to respond to a variety of

mended Security

at support the

s on developing

r, expand, or use

ile focused on NIST SP 800-53 security controls,

measures related to

an be helpful in

ta collection, analysis,

ored to support FISMA performance measures,

e Architecture’s (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM) requirements,

and any other enterprise-specific requirements for reporting quantifiable information about

written primarily for Chief Information Officers (CIOs), Senior Agency

Information Security Officers (SAISOs)—often referred to as Chief Information Security

SOs)—and Information System Security Officers (ISSOs). It targets individuals

who are familiar with security controls as described in NIST SP 800-53. The concepts,

vernment and

ness has been under development for , and

tion Security, both

e 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

0-55 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

federal government mandates and initiatives, including FISMA.

This publication uses the security controls identified in NIST SP 800-53, Recom

Controls for Federal Information Systems, as a basis for developing measures th

evaluation of information security programs. In addition to providing guideline

measures, the guide lists a number of candidate measures that agencies can tailo

as models for developing other measures.1 Wh

the process described in this guide can be applied to develop agency-specific

security controls that are not included in NIST SP 800-53.

The information security measurement program described in this document c

fulfilling regulatory requirements. The program provides an underlying da

and reporting infrastructure that can be tail

Federal Enterpris

information security performance.

1.2 Audience

This guide is

Officers (CI

processes, and candidate measures presented in this guide can be used within go

industry contexts.

1.3 History

The approach for measuring security control effective

several years. NIST SP 800-55, Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology Systems

NIST Draft SP 800-80, Guide to Developing Performance Metrics for Informa

addressed information security measurement. This document supersedes thes

on concepts and processes introduced in the original version of NIST SP 80

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.

they are meeting applicable information security requirements, and to document the level of

performance based on results of annual program reviews.

An information security measurement program within an organization should include four

interdependent components (see Figure 1-1).

1.4 Critical Success Factors

Figure 1-1. Information Security Measurement Program Structure

This support

ization. Without

trol information

ured by

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.

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.

establishes a focus on information security within the highest levels of the organ

a solid foundation (i.e., proactive support of personnel in positions that con

resources), the information security measurement program can fail when press

organizational dynamics and budget limitations.

The third component is developing and establishing quantifiable performanc

designed to capture and provide meaningful performance data. To provide meaningful data,

quantifiable information security measures must be based on information

goals and objectives, and be easily obtainable and feasible to measure. They m

e measures that are

security performance

ust also be

repeatable, provide relevant performance trends over time, and be useful for tracking

onsistent periodic

learned, improve

d plan for the implementation of future security

controls to meet new information security requirements as they occur. Accurate data collection

ningful and useful

d by the degree

rmation security measurement

program should provide substantive justification for decisions that directly affect the information

se decisions include budget and personnel requests and

should assist in

ance.

ded to assist

ent,

s on quantifying

fforts such as those described in NIST SP

ation Systems;

in NIST SP 800-30,

mmended Security

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.

performance and directing resources.

Finally, the information security measurement program itself must emphasize c

analysis of the measures data. Results of this analysis are used to apply lessons

effectiveness of existing security controls, an

must be a priority with stakeholders and users if the collected data is to be mea

in improving the overall information security program.

The success of an information security program implementation should be judge

to which meaningful results are produced. A comprehensive info

security posture of an organization. The

allocation of available resources. An information security measurement program

the preparation of required reports relating to information security perform

1.5 Relationship to Other NIST Documents

This document is a continuation in a series of NIST special publications inten

information management and information security personnel in the establishm

implementation, and maintenance of an information security program. It focuse

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 e

800-53A, Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Inform

• Information security risk assessments efforts, such as those described

Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems; and

• Minimum security controls recommended in NIST SP 800-53, Reco

Controls for Federal Information Systems.

NIST SP 800-55, Revision 1, differs

inputs into the

anagers; and

•NIST SP 800-65, Integrating IT Security into the Capital Planning and Investment

sist with prioritization for the continuous monitoring of

bed in NIST SP 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and

1.6 Document Organization

nsibilities of agency

rity program, and in

uidelines on the

security measures, the benefits of

he factors that

y to strategic

rocess used for

usses those factors

tion 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.

Information security measurement results described in this guide will provide

information security program activities described in a number of NIST publications, including:

• NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: A Guide for M

Control Process.

These measures can also be used to as

security controls, as descri

Accreditation of Federal Information Systems.

The remaining sections of this guide discuss the following:

• Section 2, Roles and Responsibilities, describes the roles and respo

staff that have a direct interest in the success of the information secu

the establishment of an information security measurement program.

• Section 3, Information Security Measures Background, provides g

background and definition of information

implementation, various types of information security measures, and t

directly affect success of an information security measurement program

• Section 4, Legislative and Strategic Drivers, links information securit

planning through relevant legislation and guidelines.

• Section 5, Measures Development Process, presents the approach and p

development of information security measures.

• Section 6, Information Security Measurement Implementation, disc

that can affect the implementa

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section outlines the key roles and responsibilities for developing and imp

information security measures. While information security is the responsib

of the organization

lementing

ility of all members

, the positions described in Sections 2.1 through 2.6 are key information

ders that should work to instill a culture of information security awareness

zation..

urement are as

agency strategic and

al planning processes to secure the organization’s mission;

to annual reporting on the

ation

ent and

gency;

t activities have adequate financial and

human resources for success;

• Actively promoting information security measurement as an essential facilitator of

y; and

• Approving policy to officially institute measures collection.

ollowing responsibilities related to information

• 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

• Demonstrating management’s commitment to information security measures

development and implementation through formal leadership;

security stakehol

across the organi

2.1 Agency Head

The specific Agency Head responsibilities related to information security meas

follows:

• Ensuring that information security measures are used in support of

operation

• Ensuring that information security measures are integrated in

effectiveness of the agency information security program by the Chief Inform

Officer (CIO);

• Demonstrating support for information security measures developm

implementation, and communicating official support to the a

• Ensuring that information security measuremen

information security performance improvement throughout the agenc

2.2 Chief Information Officer

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has the f

security measurement:

information security program to the agency head;

2 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.

• Formally communicating the importance of using information secu

monitor the over rity measures to

all health of the information security program and to comply with

ent and implementation;

ion security

ation security

ures data to support policy, resource allocation, budget decisions, and assessment of

information

measures analysis

king corrective actions such as revising information security procedures and

urity training to staff; and

•ment, and institute

Officer (SAISO) may

thin this

he CISO. The SAISO has

lanning,

, evaluating, and documenting remedial actions to address any deficiencies

ency;

ation security

information

O’s annual reporting to

ency 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.

applicable regulations;

• Ensuring information security measurement program developm

• Allocating adequate financial and human resources to the informat

measurement program;

• Reviewing information security measures regularly and using inform

meas

the information security program posture and operational risks to agency

systems;

• Ensuring that a process is in place to address issues discovered through

and ta

providing additional information sec

Issuing policy, procedures, and guidelines to officially develop, imple

measures.

2.3 Senior Agency Information Security Officer

Depending upon the agency, the Senior Agency Information Security

sometimes be referred to as the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Wi

document, the term SAISO is used to represent both the SAISO and t

the following responsibilities related to information security measurement

• Integrating information security measurement into the process for p

implementing

in the information security policies, procedures, and practices of the ag

• Obtaining adequate financial and human resources to support inform

measurement program development and implementation;

• Leading the development of any internal guidelines or policy related to

security measures;

• Using information security measures in support of the agency CI

the ag

2.4 Program Manager/Information System Owner

ensuring that

nd availability of

information and information systems. The program manager/information system owner has the

rity measurement program development and

ction and

•Educating staff on the development, collection, analysis, and reporting of information

quirements,

• Ensuring that measurement data is collected consistently and accurately and is provided

red;

• Reviewing information security measures data regularly and using it for policy, resource

s; and

easuring

performance.

information security measurement program development and

collection and

ata or providing measurement data to designated staff that are collecting,

analyzing, and reporting the data.

2.6 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.

Program managers, as well as information system owners, are responsible for

proper security controls are in place to address the confidentiality, integrity, a

following responsibilities related to information security measuremen

• Participating in information secu

implementation by providing feedback on the feasibility of data colle

identifying data sources and repositories;

security measures and how it will affect information security policy, re

resource allocation, and budget decisions;

to designated staff who are analyzing and reporting the data;

• Directing full participation and cooperation of staff, when requi

allocation, and budget decision

• Supporting implementation of corrective actions, identified through m

information security

2.5 Information System Security Officer

The Information System Security Officer (ISSO) has the following responsibilities related to

information security measuremen

• Participating in

implementation by providing feedback on the feasibility of data

identifying data sources and repositories; and

• Collecting d

3. INFORMATION SECURITY MEASURES BACKGROUND

s are and why

defines types

can be used; discusses the key aspects of making an information security

measurement program successful; and identifies the uses of measures for management, reporting,

aking.

prove performance

tability through the collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related

easured activities and

n observed

nization.

progressively higher levels, depending on the size and complexity of an organization. While a

ms, such as

he results of data

goals and

n information or

uate information

ance objectives enable

n security policies and

organization.

example goal

training includes

f, and a reference

tion’s information security policies and procedures.

tives by

ols; 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

This section provides basic information on what information security measure

information security performance should be measured. Additionally, this section

of measures that

and decision m

3.1 Definition

Information security measures are used to facilitate decision making and im

and accoun

data. The purpose of measuring performance is to monitor the status of m

facilitate improvement in those activities by applying corrective actions based o

measurements.

Information security measures can be obtained at different levels within an orga

Detailed measures, collected at the information system level, can be aggregated and rolled up to

case can be made for using different terms for more detailed and aggregated ite

“metrics” and “measures,” this document standardizes on “measures” to mean t

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

objectives. Information security performance goals state the desired results of a

security program implementation, such as, “All employees should receive adeq

security awareness training.” Information security perform

accomplishment of goals by identifying practices defined by informatio

procedures that direct consistent implementation of security controls across the

Examples of information security performance objectives, corresponding to the

cited above, are: All new employees receive new employee training. Employee

a summary of the Rules of Behavior. Employee training includes a summary o

to, the organiza

Information security measures monitor the accomplishment of goals and objec

quantifying the implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of security contr

or averages are most common. Absolute numbers are sometimes useful, depending on the

ss that is under

d repeatable

table and stable,

e have not been

n of measurement

esources that may

ities that can provide data for

measurement include risk assessments, penetration testing, security assessments, and continuous

nd awareness

provide relevant

lied to problem

view performance by observing trends, identifying

and prioritizing corrective actions, and directing the application of those corrective actions based

available resources. The measures development process, described

in Section 5, ensures that measures are developed with the purpose of identifying causes of poor

anizational and

ormation security

nstrating

for resource

countability for

e implemented

lysis processes can

lementation within

cific information systems.

surement program

ystems and

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

activity that is being measured.

Data required for calculating measures must be readily obtainable, and the proce

consideration needs to be measurable. Only processes that can be consistent an

should be considered for measurement. Even though the processes may be repea

measurable data may be difficult to obtain if the processes and their performanc

documented. Measures must use easily obtainable data to ensure that the burde

on the organization does not defeat the purpose of measurement by absorbing r

be needed elsewhere. Examples of information security activ

monitoring. Other assessment activities (such as the effectiveness of a training a

program) can also be quantified and used as data sources for measures.

To be useful in tracking performance and directing resources, measures need to

performance trends over time and point to improvement actions that can be app

areas. Management should use measures to re

on risk mitigation factors and

performance and point to appropriate corrective actions.

3.2 Benefits of Using Measures

An information security measurement program provides a number of org

financial benefits. Major benefits include increasing accountability for inf

performance; improving effectiveness of information security activities; demo

compliance with laws, rules and regulations; and providing quantifiable inputs

allocation decisions.

Increase Accountability: Information security measures can increase ac

information security by helping to identify specific security controls that ar

incorrectly, are not implemented, or are ineffective. Data collection and ana

facilitate identification of the personnel responsible for security controls imp

specific organizational components or for spe

Improve Information Security Effectiveness: An information security mea

will enable organizations to quantify improvements in securing information s

demonstrate quantifiable progress in accomplishing agency strategic goals and objectives.

requirement to state performance measures for past and current fiscal years. A

information security measures can be used as input into the Government Acco

(GAO) and Inspectors General (IG) audits. Implementation of an information s

measurement program will demonstrate agency commitment to proactive inform

dditionally,

untability Office

ecurity

ation security.

It will also greatly reduce time spent by agencies in collecting data, which is routinely requested

raints and market

n such an

rity infrastructure.

a comprehensive risk

ased decision

ss. It will allow

ation security

allocation for future

sing the results of the measures analysis, program managers and system owners

can isolate problems, use collected data to justify investment requests, and then target

lly 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

s information security program determines the type of measures

istence and

rogram matures, its

ome more

ta that can be used

for information

ty programs need to

surement. More

the most mature

ine the effect of

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.

by the GAO and IG during audits and for subsequent status updates.

Provide Quantifiable Inputs for Resource Allocation Decisions: Fiscal const

conditions compel government and industry to operate on reduced budgets. I

environment, it is difficult to justify broad investments in the information secu

Information security investments should be allocated in accordance with

management program. Use of information security measures will support risk-b

making by contributing quantifiable information to the risk management proce

organizations to measure successes and failures of past and current inform

investments, and should provide quantifiable data that will support resource

investments. U

investments specifica

available resources.

3.3 Types of Measures

The maturity of an organization’

that can be gathered successfully. A program’s maturity is defined by the ex

institutionalization of processes and procedures. As an information security p

policies become more detailed and better documented, the processes it uses bec

standardized and repeatable, and the program produces a greater quantity of da

for performance measurement.

Figure 3-1 depicts this continuum by illustrating measurement considerations

security programs. As Figure 3-1 illustrates, less mature information securi

develop their goals and objectives before being able to implement effective mea

mature programs use implementation measures to evaluate performance, while

programs use effectiveness/efficiency and business impact measures to determ

their information security processes and procedures.

A mature program normally uses multiple tracking mechanisms to doc

various aspects of its performance. As more data becomes available, the d

measurement decreases and the ability to automate data collection increases.

automatio

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

ument and quantify

ifficulty of

Data collection

n depends on the availability of data from automated sources versus the availability of

naires and

ata is available

ols, certification

ered 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

surement

data input by personnel. Manual data collection involves developing question

conducting interviews and surveys with the organization’s staff. More usable d

from semi automated and automated data sources—such as self-assessment to

and accreditation (C&A) databases, and incident reporting/response databases—as an

information security program matures. Measures data collection is consid

documented and implemented, the ability to reliably collect the outcome of t

improves. As an organization’s information security program evolves and perfo

becomes more readily available, measures will focus on program effectiveness

operational results of security control implementation. Once information security is integrated

into an organization’s processes, the processes become repeatable, measu

becomes fully automated, and the mission or business impact of information security-related

actions

heir implementation

rmance data

/efficiency and the

rement data collection

and events can be determined by analyzing and correlating the measurement data.

Appendix A contains examples of implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, and impact

information security

xamples of

ercentage of

ge of information

password policies configured as required. At first, the results of these measures

t. At this point, the

iency and

he percentage of

ults of this system-level

results reach and

lly implemented

t activities can refocus on other

ter most implementation measures reach and remain at 100

er fully retire

curity controls that

improvement; however, as an organization matures, the emphasis and resources of

the measurement program should shift away from implementation and towards

measures.

formation security

program activities.

3.3.2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Measures

Effectiveness/efficiency measures are used to monitor if program-level processes and system-

level 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

measures.

3.3.1 Implementation Measures

Implementation measures are used to demonstrate progress in implementing

programs, specific security controls, and associated policies and procedures. E

implementation measures related to information security programs include the p

information systems with approved system security plans and the percenta

systems with

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 percen

organization should begin to focus its measurement efforts on effectiveness/effic

impact measures.

Implementation measures can also examine system-level areas—for example, t

servers within a system with a standard configuration. At first, the res

measure will likely be less than 100 percent. When the implementation measure

remain at 100 percent, it can be concluded that the information systems have fu

the security controls addressed by this measure, and measuremen

controls in need of improvement. Af

percent, the organization should begin to focus its measurement efforts on

effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures. Organizations should nev

implementation measures because they are effective at pointing out specific se

are in need of

effectiveness/efficiency and impact

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 in

implemented and the resulting effect(s) on the organization’s information secu

example, the percentage of enterprise operating system vulnerabilities for whic

been applied or that have been otherwise mitigated is both an implementation

measure. It measures the implementation of the security control Flaw Remediati

800-53 because the result of the measure demonstrates whether or not vulne

mitigated through patches or other means. At the same time, the result

of the Secu

rity posture. For

h patches have

and effectiveness

on (SI-2) in SP

rabilities are

indicates the effectiveness

rity Alerts and Advisories (SI-5) security control because any result less than the

lly mitigate

mentation

imeliness of the

ure—percentage

idents caused by improperly configured access controls—relies on

ecurity controls:

AU-6); and Monitoring

omponents that

the efficiency of the

ort (SA-3).

rity decision

sions. These measures can offer

more,

onitoring efforts

ess of security controls. The results of

effectiveness/efficiency measures can be used to ascertain whether selected security controls are

and are helping facilitate corrective action prioritization.

gram activities

in a manner that can

an organization’s

-specific since each organization has a

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.

target indicates a lack of ability to receive alerts and use them to successfu

vulnerabilities.

Effectiveness/efficiency measures address two aspects of security control imple

results: the robustness of the result itself, referred to as effectiveness, and the t

result, referred to as efficiency. For example, the effectiveness/efficiency meas

of information security inc

information regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the following s

Incident Monitoring (IR-5); Audit Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting (

Configuration Changes (CM-4).

Additionally, the effectiveness/efficiency measure—the percentage of system c

undergo maintenance on schedule—relies on information regarding

following security controls: Periodic Maintenance (MA-2) and Life Cycle Supp

Effectiveness/efficiency measures provide key information for information secu

makers about the results of previous policy and acquisition deci

insight for improving performance of information security programs. Further

effectiveness/efficiency measures can be used as a data source for continuous m

because they help determine the effectiven

functioning properly

Effectiveness/efficiency measures may require fusing information security pro

data with the data obtained from automated monitoring and evaluation tools

be directly tied to security controls implementation.

3.3.3 Impact Measures

Impact measures are used to articulate the impact of information security on

mission. These measures are inherently organization

unique mission. Depending upon the organization’s

These measures combine information about the results of security controls impl

a variety of information about resources. They can provide the most direct ins

of information security to the organization and are the ones that are sought out

For example, the percentage of the agency’s information system budget devote

security relies on information regarding the implementation, effectiveness,

following NIST SP 800-53 security controls: Allocation of Resources (SA-2) a

(SA-4). Another, more generalized budget-related impact measure would b

information security investments reported to OMB in an

ementation with

ight into the value

by executives.

d to information

and outcome of the

nd Acquisitions

e the number of

Exhibit 300. Rather than examining the

between the

ocess.

g a variety of resource information across the organization in a

manner that can be directly tied to information security activities and events.

Organizations embarking on information security performance measurement should be aware of

e p make their program a success. These include specific

organizational structure and processes as well as an understanding of required budget, personnel,

security measures

information security as

ular basis (e.g.,

urce management, legal department) may need to be included in this process. (See

ore information on stakeholders.) If an organizational element exists that is

rformance measurement in general, the development and implementation of an

t organization. If a

pment and

ply with the

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,

impact of a security control or controls, this measure evaluates the relationship

portfolio of information security investments and the budget pr

Impact measures require trackin

3.4 Measurement Considerations

several considerations that can h l

and time resources.

3.4.1 Organizational Considerations

Appropriate stakeholders must be included in the development of information

and program implementation. Organizational elements that do not have

their primary responsibility but interact with information security on a reg

training, reso

Section 5.1 for m

responsible for pe

information security measurement program should be coordinated with tha

process exists for approving organization-wide data calls and actions, develo

implementation of the information security measurement program should com

existing process.

3.4.2 Manageability

Any information security measurement program must be manageable for

obsolete measures should be phased out and new ones that measure completion

of more current items should be used. New measures will also be required and effectiveness

if the organization’s

mission is redefined or if changes are made to information security policies and guidelines.

repositories used

should be

incident-reporting

lements, or if

f standardizing

s cannot be overemphasized. When organizations are developing and

ecurity measurement

to facilitate the

ts of

rity measurement

ose of

ation security measures must be as nonintrusive as possible—and of maximum usefulness

s rather than collect data.

substantial

imize its benefits.

sources to maintain the

program.

Finally, the information contained in information security data repositories represents a

y of this data,

ected

tion. Automating

ps institutionalize

automated data

lections 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

3.4.3 Data Management Concerns

To ascertain the quality and validity of data, data collection methods and data

for measures data collection and reporting, either directly or as data sources,

standardized. The validity of data is suspect if the primary data source is an

database that stores only the information reported by a few organizational e

reporting processes between organizations are inconsistent. The importance o

reporting processe

implementing processes that may serve as inputs into an information s

program, they must ensure that data gathering and reporting are clearly defined

collection of valid data.

Organizations must understand that although they may collect substantial amoun

information security data, not all data will be useful for their information secu

program at any given point in time. Any data collection specifically for the purp

inform

to ensure that available resources are used primarily to correct problem

Establishment of an information security measurement program will require a

investment to ensure that the program is implemented in a way that will max

Benefits of the program are expected to outweigh the costs of investing re

significant collection of operational and vulnerability data. Due to the sensitivit

information security performance measurement data repositories need to be prot

accordingly.

3.4.4 Automation of Measurement Data Collectio

Efficient data management is facilitated by automating measurement data collec

measurement data collection standardizes data collection and reporting, and hel

measurement activity by integrating it into business processes. In addition,

collection minimizes opportunities for human error, leading to greater accuracy of available data.

Standardized collection and reporting can also increase data availability, as col

compliance with regulations such as FISMA, they can also be used to map s

control settings to the corresponding NIST SP 800-53 security controls, which c

verification of compliance more consistent and efficient. For example, a check

the password strength settings on a system and report whether or not those sett

requirements specified in NIST SP 800-53. The results of such automated dat

provide dynamic updates t

pecific technical

an make the

list could examine

ings meet

a collection could

o an agency’s automated information security performance measures

to indicate if information security targets are being achieved and where corrective actions and

ety of environments and

perational

ystem development life

ocesses; and

n be applied to organizational units, sites, or other

organizational constructs. Organizations should carefully define the scope of their information

c goals and

ram maturity.

measurement can be applied at the information system level to provide

quantifiable data regarding the implementation, effectiveness/efficiency, or impact of required or

ation system owners can use measures to support the

determination of the information system’s security posture, demonstrate compliance with

ent. Information security

k assessments,

rting activities, or

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

mitigation activities are required.

3.5 Information Security Measurement Program Scope

An information security measurement program can be scoped to a vari

needs:

• Quantifying information system-level security performance for an o

information system;

• Quantifying the integration of information security into the s

cycle (SDLC) during information system and software development pr

• Quantifying enterprise-wide information security performance.

Information security measures ca

security measurement program based on specific stakeholder needs, strategi

objectives, operating environments, risk priorities, and information security prog

3.5.1 Individual Information Systems

Information security

desired security controls. Inform

organizational requirements, and identify areas in need of improvem

measurement can support certification and accreditation activities (e.g. ris

information system security plans, and continuous monitoring), FISMA repo

capital planning activities.

useful for different project activities. The following table provides examples of information

security measu ty of project activities.

T ement D ystem Devel nt3

res that can be used during the SDLC for a varie

able 1. Measur uring S opme

SDLC Phase Relevant Measures Purpose Value

Acquisition/Dev defects that negatively

impact the security

posture of the system

des insight into the

effectiveness of life cycle

es and information

security training for

evelopers

cates need for additional

rity controls in

operations

elopment • Percentage of product • Identify software

defects that may

• Provi

be exploited in the

future process

• Indi

secu

Acquisition/Dev security requirements

(i.e., security controls

implemented) that are

mapped to design

des insight into

ion of information

rity requirements in

releases

Provides insight into

complexity of information

curity implementation

s short- and long-

for additional

security controls in

operations

elopment • Percentage of information • Determine if

security

• Provi

inclus

requirements are

being planned and

implemented

secu

early

•

• Indicate

term need

Acquisition/Dev

ount of

monitoring

required

ides insight into

bility of inherent

vulnerabilities and increased

enterprise risk

elopment • Number of en

for a module

the minimum

try points

(should be

necessary)

• Fewe

poi

r entry

nts reduces the

• Prov

possi

Acquisition/Dev discovered

are known as

ilities

overflows

ting)

viations

sign, code,

ents

er of defects and

the area of the code in

which they were found (it

is a higher risk to have

the defects between

or other interfaces)

• Percent of discovered

vulnerabilities that have

been mitigated

• Proactively

address security

defects prior to

testing and

implementation

• Helps minimize

development and

maintenance rework costs

elopment

defects that

software vulnerab

(e.g., buffer

and cross-site scrip

• Number of de

• Number of

between de

and requirem

• Numb

components, unit seams,

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

SDLC Phase Relevant Measures Purpose Value

Acquisition/Dev informatio

activities

t into cost

d schedule risks to project

es accuracy in

ng of future projects

elopment • Cost/schedule variance in

n security

• Moni

an tor planning • Provides insigh

implementation of an

succes

security activities • Increas

planni

Implementati in

erabilities

• Percentage of failed

security control

future

t into risk of

being exploited

when implemented

• Indicates need for additional

security controls in

tions

on/Assessment • Percentage of

that conta

vuln

modules • Identify software

defects that may

be exploited in th

• Provides insigh

the system

requirements opera

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

ine if software defects that may impact information security are being identified

more secure design

•Identify and investigate trends that require corrective actions, such as training or revising

ty controls; and

• Track trends in information security risk throughout the SDLC.

Collecting, analyzing, and reporting appropriate security measures during the SDLC can be used

elopment effort to

rather than added

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.

manner:

• Determ

early in the life cycle where they are more cost-effective to fix;

• Identify and remove potential vulnerabilities in software and develop

practices;

poorly written and confusing procedures;

• Determine if the information system will comply with required securi

to improve integration of information security into the information system dev

increase the overall assurance that system security requirements are built in

later.

3.5.3 Enterprise-Wide Programs

4. LEGISLATIVE AND STRATEGIC DRIVERS

This section explains the relationship between overall agency performance mea

and information security performance measures reporting, and provides agen

on how to link these two activities to ensure that their information secur

to overall accomplishment of the agency mission, goals, and objectives. Section

provide an overview of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the

Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and the Federal Enterprise A

sures reporting

cies with guidelines

ity program contributes

s 4.1 and 4.2

Federal

rchitecture from a

performance measurement point of view and describe their associated performance management

4.3 discusses the linkage between enterprise strategic planning and

information security.

ns, is driving an increased

purpose of these

ations, improve efficiencies in

e value of these services to the public. Agencies are

tives and make these plans and corresponding

velops initiatives

4.1.1 Government Performance Results Act

tructure and facilitate

nually

e federal

gencies accountable for achieving

gram 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;

requirements, while Section

4.1 Legislative Considerations

Legislation such as GPRA and FISMA, along with executive regulatio

emphasis on managing, quantifying, and reporting agency performance. The

efforts is to facilitate the streamlining of U.S. government oper

delivering services, and demonstrate th

required to strategically plan their initia

performance measures available to the public. The Executive Branch also de

that may require organizations to collect and report performance measures.

GPRA focuses on improving program effectiveness and efficiency by adequately articulating

program goals and providing information on program performance. To s

program improvement, it requires agencies to develop multiyear strategic plans and an

report their performance against these plans.

The purpose of GPRA is to:

• Improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of th

government by systematically holding federal a

program results;

• Initiate pro

• Improve congressional decision making by providing more objec

achieving statutory objectives and by r tive information on

eporting on the relative effectiveness and

culminates in

A puts this

g and Investment Control (CPIC)

plishes and how well

the accomplishments match with the program’s purpose and objectives.”5

formance planning processes, agencies should:

anagement and

means to track

e against agency goals and objectives and measurable performance targets. Agencies

can demonstrate the impact of information security on their missions by aligning information

mation security goals and objectives.

d Execution of the

Management Act

urate with the

ormation

ementing and

The purpose of FISMA is to:

ness 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

efficiency of federal programs and spending; a

• Improve internal management of the federal government.4

GPRA mandates agencies to conduct strategic and performance planning that

annual submissions of strategic plans and performance measures reports. GPR

planning in the context of the overall agency Capital Plannin

process by emphasizing “managing for results—what the program accom

As a part of their annual strategic and per

• 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 M

Budget (OMB) on a quarterly basis.

This performance measures reporting directly supports GPRA by providing a

performanc

security performance measures with their infor

GPRA is implemented by OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, an

Budget, Part 6.

4.1.2 Federal Information Security

FISMA requires federal agencies to provide appropriate protection of their resources through

implementing a comprehensive information security program that is commens

sensitivity of the information being processed, transmitted, and stored by agency inf

systems. It also requires agencies to assess and report their performance in impl

managing their information security programs.

• Provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effective

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.

security risks, including coordination of information security efforts throughout the

nce of minimum security controls required to

on security

cts offer advanced,

ic security that are

re information

s should be made by individual agencies from among commercially

developed products.6

nes pertaining to

s and define and

ources. It also requires

rity programs.

enables agencies to

ormation security

stems that

are certified and accredited, the percentage of their personnel that have taken required

g requirements. A

information security measurement program also enables agencies to satisfy any new

easures reporting requirements required internally or

r information security data collection, analysis, quantification,

d quarterly FISMA

4.2 Federal Enterprise Architecture

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

civilian, national security, and law enforcement communities;

• Provide for the development and maintena

protect federal information and information systems;

• Provide a mechanism for improved oversight of federal agency informati

programs;

• Acknowledge that commercially developed information security produ

dynamic, robust, and effective information security solutions for the protection of critical

information infrastructures important to national defense and econom

designed, built, and operated by the private sector; and

• Recognize that the selection of specific technical hardware and softwa

security solution

FISMA also mandated NIST to develop and promulgate standards and guideli

federal information systems.

FISMA requires agencies to identify and assess risks to their information system

implement appropriate security controls to protect their information res

agencies to report quarterly and annually on the status of their information secu

An institutionalized information security performance measurement program

collect and report on relevant FISMA performance indicators. For example, inf

performance measures enable agencies to quickly determine the percentage of their sy

information security training, and their compliance with other FISMA reportin

mature

information security performance m

externally by providing a basis fo

and reporting.

OMB publishes annual guidelines on the process and elements of annual an

reporting.

In addition to legislative information

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

framework to measure the performance of major IT investments and their contribution to

implementation into FEA efforts to reduce duplication of data collection and facilitate integration

rity

gic planning

lly established, each with

lished. As a part of

mplishment of their

measure.

Information security performance measures provide a means to monitor and report on an

rformance

ctiveness of

ency’s mission.

hich are defined

ecurity must be

d to at least one goal or objective in the strategic planning process to demonstrate its

ablished by

rity requirements

ishing these goals and

performance

ed 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.

program performance.

Organizations should consider tying information security measures development and

of information security into their enterprise architectures.

4.3 Linkage Between Enterprise Strategic Planning and Information Secu

Federal agencies develop their long-term strategic goals as part of their strate

process—a requirement of GPRA. Five to six strategic goals are usua

several performance objectives that describe how the goal will be accomp

this process, agencies develop performance measures to quantify the acco

goals and objectives with quarterly and annual targets for each performance

agency’s implementation of its information security program and associated pe

measures as mandated by FISMA. These measures can also help assess the effe

security controls in protecting agency information resources in support of the ag

Ultimately, all efforts must support the agency’s overall goals and objectives, w

and reassessed annually during its strategic planning activities. Information s

explicitly tie

importance in accomplishing the agency’s mission. This connection can be est

identifying goals and objectives that would articulate agency information secu

within the context of the overall agency mission. Progress toward accompl

objectives may be monitored by implementing appropriate information security

measures.

Information security performance measures can be developed and us

5. MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

ce measures

n during

early in the process is more effective than

ions for setting up an

• Selecting the measures most appropriate for the organization’s strategy and business

vironment, and

ation to, all relevant

stakeholders; and

ce, including

the establishment

ent

al set of measures as well as selection of the measures subset that is

surement program

ects of information

s section describes the

6 describes the information security measurement

n a larger organizational

context and demonstrates that they can be used to progressively measure the implementation,

ctivities within

r 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.

The benefit of devoting the time to set up an information security performan

program in advance is similar to that of allowing time for requirements definitio

information system development—investing time

retrofitting requirements once the effort is under way. Important considerat

information security performance measures program include:

environment, including mission and information security priorities, en

requirement

• Taking time to collect input and get buy-in from, and provide educ

• Ensuring that appropriate technical and process infrastructure is in pla

creation/modification of data collection, analysis, and reporting tools.

Two processes—measures development and measures implementation—guide

and operation of an information security measurement program. The measures developm

process establishes the initi

appropriate for an organization at a given time. The information security mea

implementation process is iterative by nature and ensures that appropriate asp

security are measured for a specific time period. The remainder of thi

measures development process. (Section

program implementation process.)

Figure 5-1 illustrates the place of information security measures withi

effectiveness/efficiency, and business impact of information security a

organizations or for specific information systems.

The information security measures development process consists of two majo

Figure 5-1. Information Security Measures Development Pr

5.1 Stakeholder Interest Identification

ocess

f the measures development process (see Figure 5-1) identifies relevant stakeholders

s in information security measurement. Anyone within an organization can be

me individuals or groups have a greater stake

s. The primary information security stakeholders are:

ystem administrator/network administrator;

• 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);

Phase 1 o

and their interest

an information security stakeholder, although so

than other

• Agency Head;

• CIO;

• SAISO/CISO;

• ISSO;

• Program manager/information system owner;

• Information s

• Security engineers; and

• Training organization;

• Human resources/personnel organization;

ilities.

ts of their particular

ay require an

’s information

be determined through

ent reviews. In

erenced in Section

res. It is

ended that fewer measures per stakeholder be used when an organization is establishing

uld gradually

ement program

evelopment to

urity performance.

system security

ram’s overall success.

ency/effectiveness,

utive will be

ission 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

and program managers will be interested in the

effectiveness/efficiency of information security programs (e.g., Could we have prevented the

work administrators

ps to avoid or

5.2 Goals and Objectives Definition

Phase 2 of the measures development process (see Figure 5-1) is to identify and document

hat 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 high-

level policies and requirements, laws, regulations, guidelines, and guidance.7

• Inspectors General (IG); and

• Chief Privacy Officer or other designated official with privacy responsib

Stakeholder interests will differ, depending on the information security aspec

role and their position within the organizational hierarchy. Each stakeholder m

additional set of customized measures that provides a view of the organization

security performance within their area of responsibility. Interests may

multiple venues, such as interviews, brainstorming sessions, and mission statem

many cases, stakeholder interests are driven by laws and regulations. As ref

3.4.2, each stakeholder should initially be responsible for two to three measu

recomm

an information security program; the number of measures per stakeholder sho

increase as the information security program and information security measur

mature.

Stakeholders should be involved in each step of information security measures d

ensure organizational buy-in to the concept of measuring information sec

This involvement will also ensure that a sense of ownership of the information

measures exists at multiple levels of the organization to encourage the prog

The three measurable aspects of information security—business impact, effici

and implementation—speak to different stakeholders. For example, an exec

interested in the business and m

newspaper?), information security

incident? How fast did we respond to it?), and information systems or net

will want to know what went wrong (e.g., Have we performed all necessary ste

minimize the impact of the incident?).

information system security performance goals and objectives t

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

Information security program goals and objectives can also be derived f

goals and objectives in support of the overall organization’s mission, wh

articulated in agency strategic and performance plans. Applicable docu

reviewed to identify and extract applicable information security performance goals and

objecti

rom enterprise-level

ich are usually

ments should be

ves. Extracted goals and objectives should be validated with the organizational

stakeholders to ensure their acceptance of, and participation in, the measures development

quirements for

um security

ing to low-

gencies must define

rocessed, stored, and

programs must

entation and

it linkage of

s can use

in FIPS 200, as an input into objectives

ese specifications, which

rovided in Appendix D.

rammatic and

nization-specific

emented are

efine a baseline of

information security practices for the information system. Specifically, they describe how

niques lead to accomplishing information

security performance goals and objectives. These documents should be examined not only

ies when the

ents should be

d 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

process.

Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200, Minimum Security Re

Federal Information and Information Systems, provides specifications for minim

requirements. NIST SP 800-53 provides minimum security controls correspond

impact, moderate-impact, and high-impact categories as defined in FIPS 199, Standards for

Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. A

and implement minimum security controls based on the sensitivity of data p

transmitted on their information systems. As such, agency information security

include planning, implementing, monitoring, and reporting on the implem

effectiveness of these information system security controls. To facilitate explic

information security activities with agency-level strategic planning, agencie

specifications for minimum security requirements, stated

for developing information security performance measures. (Th

correspond to the 17 security control families in NIST SP 800-53, are p

Appendix A provides candidate information security measures from both prog

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 orga

information security practices. Details of how security controls should be impl

usually set forth in organization-specific policies and procedures that d

implementing security controls, requirements, and tech

during initial measures development, but in future measures development activit

initial list of measures is exhausted and needs to be replaced. Applicable docum

reviewed to identify information security controls, applicable processes, an

evidence to support measures development and data collection.8 Implementat

points to aspects of security controls that would be indicative of the informatio

performance objective being met, or at least that actions leading to the accompl

performance objective in the future are performed. The information system security

ion evidence

n security

ishment of the

requirements, processes, and procedures that have been implemented can be extracted by

ay contain information from which measures data can be generated:

est GAO and IG findings;

ed activities, such as incident handling and

it logs, and network and information system

nts and penetration testing results;

curity assessment reports);

results;

• Training results and statistics.

As information system security practices evolve and the documents that describe them change,

o ensure that the newly

e examined to

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

ion describes how

to develop measures in these three areas for information security. (Appendix A provides

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

consulting multiple sources, including documents, interviews, and observatio

The following sources m

• System Security Plans

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

• Lat

• Tracking of information security-relat

reporting, testing, network management, aud

billing;

• Risk assessme

• C&A documentation (e.g., se

• Continuous monitoring

• Contingency plans;

• Configuration management plans; and

existing measures will be retired and new measures will be developed. T

developed measures are appropriate, these and similar documents will need to b

identify new areas that should be captured in measures.

5.5 Measures Development and Selection

impact. The performance ures development process presented in this sectmeas

candidate measures, some of which correspond

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.

Organizations manage what

they measure. It is important

to select two to three high-

priority measures per

stakeholder, determined by

using a risk-based approach.

sumes that

ave multiple strategic goals, and that a single goal may require inputs from

multiple measures.

n security

urity control, a

easures that

help determine where a given organization stands in support of the corresponding strategic

asured, provide a

rols should:

• Use data describing the security control’s implementation to generate required measures

th overall information security program performance should:

ity goals and objectives that may encompass performance

of information security across the spectrum of security controls; and

generate

measures.

tin res, will be quite large.

nsure that the set mentation has the

security

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).

through development and use of performance measures. This approach as

organizations h

5.5.1 Measures Development Approach

Depending on the scope of the measurement effort, development of informatio

measures should focus on gauging the security performance of a specific sec

group of security controls, or a security program. Such an approach will result in m

objective—and, when multiple controls or the entire program are being me

broad view of information security performance.

Measures corresponding to security control families or individual security cont

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

such as POA&M, testing, and project tracking; and

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

categorization.

Measures dealing wi

• Be mapped to information secur

• Use the data describing the information security program performance to

required

5.5.2 Measures Prioritization and Selection

The universe of possible measures, based on exis

Measures must be prioritized to e g policies and procedu

selected for initial imple

following qualities:

• Facilitates improvement of high-priority

control implementation as defined using a risk-based

• Measures processes that already exist and are established. Measuring i

processes will not provide meaningful data about information security p

will not be useful for targeting specific aspects of performance. Howeve

such measurement may still be useful to attain a baseline to be closely m

nconsistent

erformance and

r, attempting

onitored through

continuous assessment and further measurement to improve the information security

ce of selected

y program

portance in the

Weight should be based on the overall risk

mitigation goals and would likely reflect higher criticality of enterprise-level initiatives versus

is a useful tool that facilitates the integration of information

security measures into the departmental capital planning process.

ation security

ch success is measured. The

rformance

easures

implementation

is complex because

f performance for

ation of security

events on its

An organization

nd 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.

posture.

Organizations may decide to use a weighting scale to differentiate the importan

measures and ensure that results accurately reflect existing information securit

priorities. This would involve assigning values to each measure based on its im

context of the overall information security program.

smaller-scale initiatives. This scale

5.5.3 Establishing Performance Targets

Establishing performance targets is an important component of defining inform

measures. Performance targets establish a benchmark by whi

degree of success is based on the proximity of the measure result to the stated pe

target. The mechanics of establishing performance targets differ for implementation m

and the other two types of measures (effectiveness/efficiency and impact). For

measures, targets are set to 100 percent completion of specific tasks.

Setting performance targets for effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures

management will need to apply qualitative and subjective reasoning to determine appropria

levels of security effectiveness and efficiency, and use these levels as targets o

applicable measures. Although every organization desires effective implement

controls, efficient delivery of security services, and minimal impact of security

mission, the associated measurements will be different for different systems.

can attempt to establish performance targets for these measures a

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.

gets of

vailable. Trends

existed previously,

ommendations

ndustry, 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.

Establishment of effectiveness/efficiency and impact measures baselines and tar

performance can be facilitated if historic data that pertains to these measures is a

observed in the past will provide insight into ranges of performance that have

and guide the creation of realistic targets for the future. In the future, expert rec

and standards within the i

Percentage of Approved System Security Plans

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Oct-05 Apr-06 Oct-06 Apr-07 Oct-07

asu le

easure

evelop

ndard fo

n, analysis, and

e, 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.

Figure 5-2. Information Security Me

5.6 Measures Development Template

res Trend Examp

s in a

ment,

rmat will

Organizations should document their performance m

standard format to ensure repeatability of measures d

tailoring, collection, and reporting activities. A sta

provide the detail required to guide measures collectio

reporting activities. The measures templat

Table 2. Measures Template and Instructions

Field Data

Measure ID que identifier used for measure tracking and sorting. The unique identifier

ly reference another

State the uni

can be from an organization-specific naming convention or can direct

source.

Goal stem-level security

ntation for that

s and information

als can be derived

hese goals are

possible, include both the

al extracted from agency

at would contribute to

Statement of strategic goal and/or information security goal. For sy

control measures, the goal would guide security control impleme

information system. For program-level measures, both strategic goal

security goals can be included. For example, information security go

from enterprise-level goals in support of the organization’s mission. T

usually articulated in strategic and performance plans. When

enterprise-level goal and the specific information security go

documentation, or identify an information security program goal th

the accomplishment of the selected strategic goal.

Measure h the word

ber,” “frequency,” “average,” or a similar term.

red. Security

tion Evidence. If the

erate, or low), state

Statement of measurement. Use a numeric statement that begins wit

“percentage,” “num

If applicable, list the NIST SP 800-53 security control(s) being measu

controls that provide supporting data should be stated in Implementa

measure is applicable to a specific FIPS 199 impact level (high, mod

this level within the measure.

Type ess/efficiency, or impact. Statement of whether the measure is implementation, effectiven

Formula a measure. The

ves as an input into the

Calculation to be performed that results in a numeric expression of

information gathered through listing implementation evidence ser

formula for calculating the measure.

Target completion or a

llars, or other

ay be tied to a required completion time frame.

stated goal.

Threshold for a satisfactory rating for the measure, such as milestone

statistical measure. Target can be expressed in percentages, time, do

appropriate units of measure. Target m

Select final and interim target to enable tracking of progress toward

Im em

Evide that the activity is

or a specific measure.

at would provide

alify the measure for

NIST SP 800-53

• 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.

pl entation

nce Implementation evidence is used to compute the measure, validate

performed, and identify probable causes of unsatisfactory results f

• For manual data collection, identify questions and data elements th

the data inputs necessary to calculate the measure’s formula, qu

acceptance, and validate provided information.

• For each question or query, state the security control number from

that provides information, if applicable.

Frequency 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.

Field Data

Responsible Indicate the following key stakeholders:

Parties d individual who owns

d individual

ollector should

t organizational unit

t of interest and ensure

e whether it is

nt and individual who

he data.

• Information Owner: Identify organizational component an

required pieces of information;

• Information Collector: Identify the organizational component an

responsible for collecting the data. (Note: If possible, Information C

be a different individual or even a representative of a differen

than the Information Owner, to avoid the possibility of conflic

separation of duties. Smaller organizations will need to determin

feasible to separate these two responsibilities.); and

• Information Customer: Identify the organizational compone

will receive t

Data Source atabases, tracking

tools, organizations, or specific roles within organizations that can provide required

information.

Location of the data to be used in calculating the measure. Include d

Reporting

Format Indication of how the measure will be reported, such as a pie chart, line c

or other format. State the type of format or provide a sample. hart, bar graph,

Candidate measures provided in Appendix A are examples of information security measures and

reporting at any point in time (e.g.,

ples of measures that can

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

• Used as a template for other information security measures.

rting point for their

nly for measuring

improvement

ation security

ous 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

may or may not be required for regulatory or organizational

FISMA). The purpose of listing these measures is to demonstrate exam

be:

• Used as stated;

Organizations are encouraged, but not required, to use these measures as a sta

information security measurement efforts.

5.7 Feedback Within the Measures Development Process

Measures that are ultimately selected for implementation will be useful not o

performance, identifying causes of unsatisfactory performance, and pinpointing

areas, but also for facilitating consistent policy implementation, effecting inform

policy changes, redefining goals and objectives, and supporting continu

continuous implementation of applicable security controls. Once effectiveness

measures are implemented, they will facilitate an understanding of whether th

performance

/efficiency

e security control

goals, identified in the information security policies and procedures, are realistic

onfiguration,

tage of passwords that

f security control

e policy will

broken

plementation, the

e identified.

d. If a significant

has been

ineffective in thwarting

r strengthening

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.

and appropriate.

For example, if an information security policy defines a specific password c

compliance with this policy could be determined by measuring the percen

are configured according to the policy. This measure addresses the level o

implementation. It is assumed that configuring all passwords according to th

significantly reduce, if not eliminate, information system compromises through

passwords. To measure effectiveness of the existing password policy im

percentage of passwords crackable by common password-breaking tools could b

This measure addresses the effectiveness of the security control as implemente

percentage of crackable passwords remains after the required password policy

implemented, the logical conclusion is that the underlying policy may be

password compromises. If this is the case, an organization will need to conside

the policy or implementing other mitigating measures. Costs and benefits

6. INFORMATION SECURITY MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION

s for monitoring

ance

entation process

sists 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.

Information security measurement implementation involves applying measure

information security control performance and using the results to initiate perform

improvement actions. The information security measurement program implem

con

Figure 6-1. Information Security Measurement Program Implementa

6.1 Prepare for Data Collection

tion Process

n process, Prepare for

mprehensive

information security measurement program—including information security measures

identification, definition, development, and selection. The next step is to develop an information

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:

Phase 1 of the information security measurement program implementatio

Data Collection, involves activities that are essential for establishing a co

security measurement program implementation plan.

10 The information security measurement program implementation plan can be formal or informal, depending upon the

organization’s needs.

• Audience for the plan;

ding responsibilities for data collection

• Process of measures collection, analysis, and reporting, as tailored to the specific

uch as risk

in the agency (e.g.,

acy) to ensure that measures data collection

contain

ontinuous

impact analyses of

s, and status

ing. Sound continuous monitoring practices dictate that the organization establishes

selection criteria for a subset of the security controls employed within the information system for

. NIST SP 800-37 provides guidelines on the continuous

monitoring process. NIST SP 800-53A provides guidelines on the assessment of security

to support and

prioritization in

ess, Collect Data

he 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);

• Measurement roles and responsibilities, inclu

(both soliciting and submitting), analysis, and reporting;

organizational structure, processes, policies, and procedures;

• Details of coordination within the Office of the CIO, relating to areas s

assessment, C&A, and FISMA reporting activities;

• Details of coordination between the SAISO and other functions with

physical security, personnel security, and priv

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

provisions for continuous monitoring of the information security program. C

monitoring activities include configuration management, information security

changes to the information system, assessment of a subset of security control

report

purposes of continuous monitoring

controls. Results generated from continuous monitoring provide data necessary

supplement the data collected in Phase 2, and help facilitate corrective action

Phase 3.

6.2 Collect Data and Analyze Results

Phase 2 of the information security measurement program implementation proc

and Analyze Results, involves activities essential for ensuring that t

• Consolidate collected data and store in a format conducive to data analysis and

ents with targets (if defined)

l and desired performance;

ance; and

more than one

security plans is

lem. To

garding the

reasons for the low percentages (e.g., lack of guidelines, insufficient expertise, or conflicting

tion evidence for the

of approved system security plans. Once this information is collected and compiled,

oblem.

entation and

ering,

een removed but

anagement practices—New or upgraded information systems that are not

configured with required information security settings and patches;

patches or upgrades that are incompatible

• 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

reporting—for example, in a database or spreadsheet;

• Conduct gap analysis to compare collected measurem

and identify gaps between actua

• Identify causes of poor perform

• Identify areas that require improvement.

Causes of poor performance can often be identified by using the data from

measure. For example, determining that the percentage of approved system

unacceptably low would not be helpful for determining how to correct the prob

determine the cause of low compliance, information will need to be obtained re

priorities). This can be collected as separate measures or as implementa

percentage

corrective actions could be directed at the cause of the pr

The following are examples of factors contributing to poor security implem

effectiveness:

• Resources—Insufficient human, monetary, or other resources;

• Training—Lack of appropriate training for personnel installing, administ

maintaining, or using the information systems;

• Information system upgrades—Information security patches that have b

not replaced during information system upgrades;

• Configuration m

• Software compatibility—Information security

with software applications supported by the information system;

• Inefficient processes—Inefficient planning and implementation proc

mea esses that influence

sures, including the communication processes necessary to direct organizational

mentation process, Identify

r closing the

tion factors, identify

clude changing

s; training information security staff, information

curity tools;

nd procedures;

veral corrective

y be inappropriate if

em. Applicable

ascending order of

ribed in NIST

s, or the

, Integrating IT

should be used to

easures in the Prepare for

Data Collection . Alternatively,

d on the criticality

tions, and the magnitude of

rmation security posture. Corrective actions

the corresponding information system or

ess.

om the top of the

6.4 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.

actions.

6.3 Identify Corrective Actions

Phase 3 of the information security measurement program imple

Corrective Actions, involves development of a plan to serve as the roadmap fo

implementation gap identified in Phase 2. It includes the following activities:

• Determine range of corrective actions—Based on results and causa

potential corrective actions for each performance issue. These may in

information system configuration

system administrator staff, or regular users; purchasing information se

changing information system architecture; establishing new processes a

and updating information security policies.

• Prioritize corrective actions based on overall risk mitigation goals—Se

actions may apply to a single performance issue; however, some ma

they are too costly or are inconsistent with the magnitude of the probl

corrective actions should be prioritized for each performance issue in

cost and descending order of impact. The risk management process desc

SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology System

corrective action prioritization process described in NIST SP 800-65

Security into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process,

prioritize corrective actions. If weights were assigned to m

phase, they should be used to prioritize corrective actions

priorities may be assigned in the Identify Corrective Actions phase base

of implementing specific corrective actions, cost of the ac

their impact on the organization’s info

should be documented in the POA&M for

organization and tracked as a part of the continuous monitoring proc

• Select most appropriate corrective actions—Viable corrective actions fr

prioritized list should be selected for use in a full cost-benefit analysis.

The following activities are generally performed as a part of business case

pursued within the bounds of agen analysis. They are

cy-specific processes to obtain the resources needed to

• Document mission and objectives (identified during Phase 2 of the measures

eline for comparing

• Document the information security performance gaps between target performance and

uring Phase 2 of

rnative, as

ntified in Phase 3 of the information security measurement program implementation

eatest effect on the

cost;

quantifiable and non-quantifiable returns delivered through

erformed in

atic risks

ss case to accurately

hase of the process.

pending 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

er recovery site

to establish an account review process.

ess case, its underlying components and

analysis enable easier completion of internal and external budget requests. A thorough

implement corrective actions, and include:

development process);

• Determine the cost and risks of maintaining status quo to use as a bas

investment alternatives;

current performance, as evidenced by the current measures collected d

the information security measurement program implementation proces

• Estimate the life cycle costs of each corrective action or investment alte

ide

process;

• Perform sensitivity analysis to determine which variables have the gr

• Characterize benefits that are

improved performance, based on the prioritization of corrective actions p

Phase 3 of the information security measurement program implementation process;

• Perform risk analysis to assess the likelihood of obstacles and programm

inherent to a particular alternative; and

• Prepare budget submission by summarizing key aspects of the busine

illustrate its merits.12

Each agency should follow its specific business case guidelines during this p

Agencies typically have unique business case processes and life cycle s

funding request. For example, the business case to build and maintain a disast

would be more thorough than a business case

Regardless of the scope and complexity of the busin

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.

ss case will support and facilitate the Obtain Resources phase, which

evaluation inquiries;

quested resources are not allocated); and

perform corrective actions.

ment program implementation process, Apply

program, or in the

M process is used

tive actions,

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.

examination of the busine

involves the following activities:

• Respond to budget

• Receive allocated budget;

• Prioritize available resources (if all re

• Assign resources to

6.5 Apply Corrective Actions

Phase 6 of the information security measure

Corrective Actions, involves implementing corrective actions in the security

technical, management, and operational areas of security controls. The POA&

to document and monitor the corrective action status.

Iterative data collection, analysis, and reporting will track the progress of correc

measure improvement, and identify areas where further

Appendix A: CANDIDATE MEASURES

rformance.

Devoting sufficient time to establishing information security performance measures is critical

to deriving the maximum value from measuring information security pe

This section offers a sampling of program-level and system-level measure

measures include information security programmatic measures, and measur

minimum security requirements in Federal Information Processing Standard (F

Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information

correspond to the 17 security control families in NIST SP 800-53. They a

adoption as a complete set, but are provided as examples that org

s. The sample

es that align with the

IPS) 200,

Systems, which

re not intended for

anizations can tailor and adapt

mples of tailoring

eporting

um security

cts of the requirements.

plement 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.

to measure the performance of their information security programs. Exa

include specific time frames, implementation evidence, data sources, formulas, r

formats, frequency, responsible parties, or adding further fields to the template

It should be noted that these measures do not completely address the minim

requirements from FIPS 200, but will address one or more important aspe

Organizations should look into developing additional measures to com

A-1

Measure 1: Securi el) ty Budget (program-lev

Field Data

Measure ID Security Budget Measure 1

Goal rity and accountability

nd products.

properly secure agency

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive secu

for personnel, facilities, a

• Information Security Goal: Provide resources necessary to

information and information systems.

Measure Percentage (%) of the agency’s information system budget devoted to information

ion of Resources

security

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – SA-2; Allocat

Measure Type Impact

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

Target This should be an organizationally defined percentage.

Implementati

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

et across all agency systems (SA-2)?

2. What is the total information technology budg

_____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsi

Parties ncial Officer (CFO),

fficer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information

ystem Security Officer

• 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)

ble • Information Owner: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Fina

Senior Agency Information Security O

Security Officer [CISO])

• Information Collector: System Administrator or Information S

(ISSO), budget personnel

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 rity and accountability

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

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive secu

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Informati

Measure Percentage (%)

periods after disco

of high13 vulnerabilities mitigated within organizationally defined time

very

NIST SP 800-53 Controls: RA-5; Vulnerability Scanning

Measure Ty Effectiveness/Efficiency pe

Formula (Number of high vulnerabilities identified and mitigated within targ

during the time period /number of high vulnerabilities identified wit

*100

eted time frame

hin the time period)

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

Evidence ber of high vulnerabilities identified across the enterprise during the time period

(RA-5)? _____

ring the time period

tion 1. Num

2. Number of high vulnerabilities mitigated across the enterprise du

(RA-5)? _____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsi Agency Information

ficer [CISO]), System

Security Officer

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information

Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

ble • Information Owner: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior

Parties Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Of

Owner

• Information Collector: System Administrator or Information System

(ISSO)

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 o

organization) ut by the

Goal rity and accountability

stem, and component access to

dentifiable, known, credible, and authorized.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive secu

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Restrict information, sy

individuals or machines that are i

Measure Percentage (%) of remote access points used to gain unauthorized acce

NIST SP 8

00-53 Controls: AC-17; Remote Access

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula (Number of remote access points used to gain unauthorized access/to

access points) *100 tal number of remote

Target This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implementati

Evidence date network diagram

 Yes  No

? _____

oes e org n employ Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to monitor traffic

ersi remo points (SI-4)?

oes e organization collect and review audit logs associated with all remote access

dent database that identifies standardized

or appropriate

to gain

on 1. Does the organization use automated tools to maintain an up-to-

that identifies all remote access points (CM-2)?

2. How many remote access points exist in the organization’s network

3. D th anizatio

trav ng te access

 Yes  N

4. D th

points (AU-6)?

 Yes  No

5. Does the organization maintain a security inci

incident categories for each incident (IR-5)?

 Yes  No

6. Based on reviews of the incident database, IDS logs and alerts, and/

remote access point log files, how many access points have been used

unauthorized access within the reporting period? ______

Frequency le: monthly) Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (examp

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible

Parties

• Information Owne puter 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])

r: Com

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 odern and secure

el are adequately trained

ation security-related duties and responsibilities.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure a high-quality work force supported by m

infrastructure and operational capabilities.

• Information Security Goal: Ensure that organization personn

to carry out their assigned inform

Measure 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 co

within the past year/total num mpleted security training

ber of information system security personnel) *100

Target is should be rcentage defined by the organization. Th a high pe

Implementa

Evidence d

documented in policy (AT-1 and PS-2)?

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

 No

How many em ncy (or agency component, as applicable) have

indicate the training that

 Yes  No

5. How many of those with significant security responsibilities have received the required

? _____

not received training, state all reasons that apply (AT-4):

 Courses unavailable

 Employee has not registered

 Other (specify) ______________

tion 1. Are significant security responsibilities defined with qualifications criteria an

 Yes  No

 Yes

3. ployees in your age

significant security responsibilities (AT-3)? _____

4. Are training records maintained (AT-4)? (Training records

specific employees have received.)

training (AT-4)

6. If all personnel have

 Insufficient funding

 Insufficient time

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

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

A-5

Field Data

Parties ormation System Security

nformation Officer (CIO), Information System

, Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Inf

Officer [ISSO], Training Manager)

• Information Customer: Chief I

Security Officer (ISSO)

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 ot 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 ou

organization) t by the

Goal urity and accountability

rmation system audit

estigation, and

tivity.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive sec

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Create, protect, and retain info

nalysis, invrecords to the extent needed to enable the monitoring, a

reporting of unlawful, unauthorized, or inappropriate ac

Measure ords review and analysis for inappropriate activity

itoring, Analysis, and Reporting

Average frequency of audit rec

NIST SP 800-53 Controls: AU-6: Audit Mon

Measure Ty ness/Efficiency pe Effective

Formula ing period Average frequency during report

Target is should be quency defined by the organization. Th a high fre

Implementa

Evidence og ing ac on the system (AU-2)?

tes evidence of

ivity within system audit logs?

 No

g period, how many system audit logs have been reviewed within the

es for inappropriate activity (choose the nearest time period for each

d AU-6):

tion For each system:

1. Is l g tivated

 Yes  No

2. Does the organization have clearly defined criteria for what constitu

“inappropriate” act

 Yes

3. For the reportin

following time fram

system) (AU-3 an

Within the past day _____

Within the past week _____

2 weeks to 1 month _____

1 month to 6 months _____

Over 6 months _____

Frequency requency: Organization-defined (example: daily) Collection F

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible

Parties ned (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])

• Information Owner: Organization-defi

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 accountability

l, facilities, and products.

have been certified and

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and

for personne

• Information Security Goal: Ensure all information systems

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 Accreditatio

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula (Number of new systems with complete C&A packages with Authori

approval prior zing Official [AO]

to implementation)/(total number of new systems) *100

Target is should be ercentage defined by the organization. Th a high p

Implementa

Evidence maintain a complete and up-to-

date system inventory?

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

s required to

plementation (CA-1)?

the reporting period? _____

operate prior

tion 1. Does your agency (or agency component, if applicable)

 Yes  No

3. If the answer to Question 2 is yes, are system development project

complete C&A prior to im

 Yes  No

4. How many new systems have been implemented during

5. How many systems indicated in Question 4 have received an authority to

to implementation (CA-6)? _____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible

Parties ned (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])

• Information Owner: Organization-defi

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 agement (CM) (program-level) Man

Field Data

Measure ID Configuration Changes Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be fill

organization) ed out by the

Goal nformation

Information Security Goal: Establish and maintain baseline configurations and

dware, software,

umentation) throughout the respective system development life

• Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an electronic i

infrastructure.

• inventories of organizational information systems (including har

firmware, and doc

cycles.

Measure ge (%) approved and implemented configuration changes identified in the latest

baseline configuration

M-3: Configuration

Percenta

automated

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – CM-2: Baseline Configuration and C

Change Control

Measure Type Implementation

Formula (Number of approved and implemented configuration changes identi

automated baseline configuratio fied in the latest

n/total number of configuration changes identified

ugh automated s) *100 thro scan

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

Evidence o information systems using an

organizationally approved process (CM-3)?

ration changes that

ent 2)?

h automated scanning

emented over the last

tion 1. Does the organization manage configuration changes t

 Yes  No

2. Does the organization use automated scanning to identify configu

were implemented on its systems and networks (CM-2, Enhancem

 Yes  No

3. If yes, how many configuration changes were identified throug

over the last reporting period (CM-3)? _____

4. How many change control requests were approved and impl

reporting period (CM 3)? _____

Freque rterly)

ally)

ncy Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: qua

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annu

Respo

Part nsible

ies n Manager)

ion 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)

• Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Configuratio

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Informat

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 fille

organization) d out by the

Goal ty and accountability

, and effectively implement plans for

overy for

organizational information systems to ensure the availability of critical information

situations.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive securi

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Establish, maintain

emergency response, backup operations, and post-disaster rec

resources and continuity of operations in emergency

Measure Percentage (%) of information systems that have conducted annual contingency plan

Testing and Exercises

testing

NIST SP 800-53 Controls: CP-4: Contingency Plan

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula ngency plans

(Number of information systems that have conducted annual conti

testing/number of information systems in the system inventory) *1

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

Evidence em inventory? _____

plan (CP-2)? _____

the past year (CP-4)?

tion 1. How many information systems are in the syst

2. How many information systems have an approved contingency

3. How many contingency plans were successfully tested within

_____

Fre y) quency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annuall

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible

s er: Organization-defined (example: Contingency Plan Manager)

r, System

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (I SO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Partie

• Information Own

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owne

Administrator)

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 curity and accountability

ducts.

m users are identified and authenticated in

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive se

for personnel, facilities, and pro

• Information Security Goal: All syste

accordance with information security policy.

Measure Percentage (%) of users with access to shared accounts

AC-3: Access Enforcement,

ion

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – AC-2: Account Management,

and IA-2: User Identification and Authenticat

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula ber of users) *100 (Number of users with access to shared accounts/total num

Target This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

ce -2)? _____

tion 1. How many users have access to the system (IA

Eviden

2. How many users have access to shared accounts (AC-2)? ____

Fre quency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

Responsi ion-defined (example: System Owner, System

Administrator)

ation Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

ble • Information Owner: Organizat

Parties Administrator)

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System

• Information Customer: Chief Inform

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 Respons ) (program-level and system-level) e (IR

Field Data

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

Goal anization’s programs

ts to appropriate

• Strategic Goal: Make accurate, timely information on the org

and services readily available

• Information Security Goal: Track, document, and report inciden

organizational officials and/or authorities.

Measure ithin required time frame per applicable incident

easure will be computed for each incident category described in

Controls – IR-6: Incident Reporting

Percentage (%) of incidents reported w

category (the m

Implementation Evidence)

NIST SP 800-53

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula For each incident category (number of incidents reported on time/total number of

reported incidents) *100

Target entage defined by the organization. This should be a high perc

Implementati

Evidence re reported during the period (IR-6)?

___

Service? _____

_____

olving personally identifiable information (PII) were reported

? _____

ere reported within the prescribed time frame

cording to the time frames established by US-CERT (IR-6)?

de? _____

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)? _____

on 1. How many incidents we

Category 1 – Unauthorized Access? __

Category 2 – Denial of

Category 3 – Malicious Code? _____

Category 4 – Improper Usage? _____

Category 5 – Scans/Probes/Attempted Access? _____

Category 6 – Investigation?

2. How many incidents inv

during the period (IR-6)

3. Of the incidents reported, how many w

for their category, ac

Category 1 – Unauthorized Access? _____

Category 2 – Denial of Service? _____

Category 3 – Malicious Co

Category 4 – Improper Usage? _____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

A-12

Field Data

Responsible • Information Ow

Parties Security Incident

wner, Information

ation Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information

er [CISO])

ner: Organization-defined (example: Computer

Response Team [CSIRT])

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System O

Security Officer [ISSO], CSIRT)

• Information Customer: Chief Inform

Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Offic

Data Source ng database (if available) Incident logs, incident tracki

Reporting

Format rtion of reported incidents

per category that were reported on time

For trends – line chart each line represents an individual category plus a line

representing 100 perce t

For one-time snapshot – stacked bar chart illustrating the propo

where

A-13

Measure 11: Maint ce (MA) (system-level) enan

Field Data

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

Goal an electronic information

ation Security Goal: Perform periodic and timely maintenance on

trols on the tools,

rmation system

• Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of

infrastructure.

• Inform

organizational information systems and provide effective con

techniques, mechanisms, and personnel used to conduct info

maintenance.

Measure ntage (%) of system components that undergo maintenance in accordance with

ance schedules

and MA-6: Timely

Perce

formal mainten

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – MA-2: Controlled Maintenance

Maintenance

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula according to formal

intenance sc total number of system components) *100

(Number of system components that undergo maintenance

ma hedules/

Target ion. This should be a high percentage defined by the organizat

Implementa

Evidence 2)?

em (CM-8)? _____

e with the formal

tion 1. Does the system have a formal maintenance schedule (MA-

 Yes  No

2. How many components are contained within the syst

3. How many components underwent maintenance in accordanc

maintenance schedule (MA-6)? _____

Freque

ization-defined (example: annually)

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

Reporting Frequency: Organ

Respo

Part nsible

ies Owner)

em Administrator)

er: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (I SO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

• Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: System

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Syst

• Information Custom

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

Goal urity and accountability

ilities, and products.

stem media before

osal or ease for reuse.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive sec

for personnel, fac

• Information Security Goal: Sanitize or destroy information sy

disp rel

Measure Percentage (%)

impact systems of media that passes sanitization procedures testing for FIPS 199 high-

SP 800-53 Controls – MP-6: Media Sanitization and Disposal NIST

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula (Number of media that passes sanitization procedures testing/total number of media

ed) * 100 test

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

Evidence itizing media before it is discarded or reused (MP-1)?

 Yes  No

a sanitization procedures for FIPS 199 high-impact

for FIPS 199 high-

P-6, Enhancement

tion 1. Is there a policy for san

2. Does the organization test medi

systems (MP-6, Enhancement 2)?

 Yes  No

3. Number of media that successfully passed sanitization testing

impact systems (MP-6, Enhancement 2)? _____

4. Total number of media tested for FIPS 199 high-impact systems (M

2)? _____

Freque y)

ency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

ncy Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterl

Reporting Frequ

Responsible

Parties y Security Officer)

rmation Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Owner, Information

System Security O ficer (ISSO])

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Senior Agency Information

Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g., Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

• Information Owner: Organization-defined (example: Facilit

• Info f

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 fill

organization) ed out by the

Goal rity and accountability

ecurity protection

n’s information

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive secu

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Integrate physical and information s

mechanisms to ensure appropriate protection of the organizatio

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 y into facilities

containing information systems/total number of physical security incidents) *100

(Number of physical security incidents allowing unauthorized entr

Target This should be a low percentage defined by the organization.

Implem

Eviden entati

ce during the specified period (PE-6)?

rized entry into facilities

on 1. How many physical security incidents occurred

_____

2. How many of the physical security incidents allowed unautho

containing information systems (PE-6)? _____

Fre y) quency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterl

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterly)

Responsible

s (example: Physical Security Officer)

puter Security Incident

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (I SO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Partie

• Information Owner: Organization-defined

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Com

Response Team [CSIRT])

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 ty and accountability

al: Develop, document, periodically update, and implement

cribe the security

rules of behavior for

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive securi

for personnel, facilities, and products..

• Information Security Go

security plans for organizational information systems that des

controls in place or planned for information systems, and the

individuals accessing these systems.

Measure Percentage of employees who are authorized access to information systems only after

d rules of behavior

L-4: Rules of Behavior and AC-2: Account Management

they sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understoo

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – P

Measure Type Implementation

Formula m access after signing rules of behavior/total (Number of users who are granted syste

number of users with system access) *100

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

ce stem (AC-2)? _____

nowledgements (PL-4)? _____

em only after signing

tion 1. How many users access the sy

Eviden

2. How many users signed rules of behavior ack

3. How many users have been granted access to the information syst

rules of behavior acknowledgements? _____

Fre u y) q ency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterl

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsi ion-defined (example: System Owner, Information

])

inistrator,

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (I O), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

ble • Information Owner: Organizat

Parties System Security Officer [ISSO

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System Adm

System Owner)

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 Securit m-level and system-level) y (PS) (progra

Field Data

Measure ID Personnel Security Screening Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be f

organization) illed out by the

Goal rity and accountability

positions of

lished security

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive secu

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Ensure that individuals occupying

responsibility within organizations are trustworthy and meet estab

criteria for those positions.

Measure Percentage (%) of individuals screened before being granted access to organizational

anagement and PS-3: Personnel Screening

information and information systems

NIST SP 800-53 Controls – AC-2: Account M

Measure Type Implementation

Formula creened/total number of individuals with access) *100 (Number of individuals s

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementation

ce ss to organizational information and

ersonnel screening (PS-3)?

Eviden 1. How many individuals have been granted acce

information systems (AC-2)? _____

2. What is the number of individuals who have completed p

_____

Fre y) quency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterl

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsible

s ganization-defined (example: Human Resources)

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])

Partie

• Information Owner: Or

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: System

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 As ent (RA) (system-level) sessm

Field Data

Measure ID Risk Assessment Vulnerability Measure 1 (or a unique identifier to be

organization) filled out by the

Goal accountability

izational operations

onal assets, and

rmation systems.

• Strategic Goal: Ensure an environment of comprehensive security and

for personnel, facilities, and products.

• Information Security Goal: Periodically assess the risk to organ

i(including mission, functions, image, or reputation), organizat

individuals resulting from the operation of organizational info

Measure Percentage (%) of vulnerabilities remediated within organization-specified time frames

-5: Plan of Actions NIST SP 800-53 Controls – RA-5: Vulnerability Scanning and CA

and Milestones

Measure Type Effectiveness/Efficiency

Formula OA&M schedule/total number of

A&M docum vulnerabilities identified through vulnerability scans) *100

(Number of vulnerabilities remediated according to P

PO - ented

Target by the organization. This should be a high percentage defined

Implementation

Evidence he organization conduct periodic vulnerability scans (RA-5)?

es  No

is the periodicity of vulnerability scans (RA-5)?

 Quarterl

ities identified through

mented in appropriate system POA&Ms (CA-5)?

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)? _____

1. Does t

 Y

2. What

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Other ____________

3. Does the organization’s POA&M process require vulnerabil

vulnerability scanning to be docu

 Yes  No

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

A-19

Field Data

Responsible • Information Owner: Or

Parties Owners, Information

stem Administrators,

nformation Officer (CIO), Information System

Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

ganization-defined (example: System

System Security Officer [ISSO])

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: Sy

System Owners, Information System Security Officer [ISSO])

• Information Customer: Chief I

Security Officer (ISSO),

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

Data Source POA&Ms, vulnerability scanning reports

Reporting

Format Pie chart comparing th 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

organization) be filled out by the

Goal tronic information

mploy adequate security

ices outsourced from the

• Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an elec

infrastructure.

• Information Security Goal: Ensure third-party providers e

measures to protect information, applications, and/or serv

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 security requirements

contracts) *100

(Number of system and service acquisition contracts that include

and specifications/total number of system and service acquisition

Target h percentage defined by the organization. This should be a hig

Implementa

Evidence es the organization have? _____

curity requirements and

tion 1. How many active service acquisition contracts do

2. How many active service acquisition contracts include se

specifications (SA-4)? _____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsi ion-defined (example: Contracting Officer)

ollector: Organization-defined (example: Contracting Officer’s

l Representative, System

wner, Procurement Officer, Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (I O), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

ble • Information Owner: Organizat

Parties • Information C

Technical Representative, System Owner)

• Information Customer: Contracting Officer’s Technica

OSS

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 iden

by the organization) tifier to be filled out

Goal lectronic information

quately protect

• Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an e

infrastructure.

• Information Security Goal: Allocate sufficient resources to ade

electronic information infrastructure.

Measure erform all cryptographic operations

IPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules operating in approved modes of

Percentage of mobile computers and devices that p

using F

operation

NIST SP 800-53 Control – SC-13: Use of Validated Cryptograp

Measure Type Implementation

Formula (Number of mobile computers and devices that perform all cryptographic operations

proved modes of using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules operating in ap

operation/total number of mobile computers and devices) *100

Target gh percentage defined by the organization. This should be a hi

Implementatio

Evidence ation (CM-8)? _____

uters and devices employ cryptography (CM-8)? _____

alidated encryption

devices perform all cryptographic

perating in approved

mplementation waivers

n 1. How many mobile computers and devices are used in the organiz

2. How many mobile comp

a. How many mobile computers and devices employ FIPS 140-2 v

modules (SC-13)? _____

b. How many of those mobile computers and

operations using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules o

modes of operation (SC-13)? _____

3. How many mobile computers and devices have cryptography i

(CM-8)? _____

Fre y) quency Collection Frequency: Organization-defined (example: quarterl

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: annually)

Responsi

Parties ble ion Owner: Organization-defined (example: System Owners, Information

Officer [ISSO])

ystem Administrators,

• Information Customer: Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information System

Security Officer (ISSO), Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) (e.g.,

Chief Information Security Officer [CISO])

• Informat

System Security

• Information Collector: Organization-defined (example: S

System Owners, Information System Security Officer [ISSO])

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 fil

organization) led out by the

Goal tronic information

ode at appropriate

formation systems

take appropriate actions in response.

• Strategic Goal: Accelerate the development and use of an elec

infrastructure.

• Information Security Goal: Provide protection from malicious c

locations within organizational information systems, monitor in

security alerts and advisories, and

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 Ty and Effectiveness/Efficiency pe Implementation

Formula uted alerts and advisories for which

non-applicable, or granted a waiver/total

number of applicable vulnerabilities identified through alerts and advisories and through

lnera lity sc 00

(Number of vulnerabilities addressed in distrib

patches have been implemented, determined as

vu bi ans) *1

Target This should be a high percentage defined by the organization.

Implementa

Evidence es the organization distribute alerts and advisories (SI-5)?

 Yes  No

erabilities were identified by analyzing distributed alerts and advisories

ns (RA-5)? _____

plemented to address identified

? _____

be remediated by

tion 1. Do

2. How many vuln

(SI-5)? _____

3. How many vulnerabilities were identified through vulnerability sca

4. How many patches or work-arounds were im

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

implementing patches or work-arounds? _____

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

Reporting Frequency: Organization-defined (example: monthly)

Responsible

Parties

• 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])

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

A-23

A-24

Field Data

Reporting

Format omposed of percentages

isories for which

patches have been determined as non-applicable, have been implemented, have had a

waiver granted, or othe

Stacked bar chart with total number of applicable vulnerabilities c

of number of vulnerabilities addressed in distributed alerts and adv

Appendix B: ACRONYMS

A Control C Access

A Authorizing OfficO ial

tion

ity Officer

T se Team

ise Architecture tandards

ontrols Audit Manual

A anagement Act

tability Office

A lts Act

y Engineering Association

ecurity Officer

ratory

ndards and Technology

stones

e Model

urity

RA Risk Assessment

SA System and Services Acquisition

SAISO Senior Agency Information Security Officer

SC System and Communications Protection

SDLC System Development Life Cycle

SI System and Information Integrity

SP Special Publication

USC United States Code

AT Awareness and Trainin

AU Audit and Accountability

A taC& Certification and Accredi

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CIO Chief Information Officer

CISO Chief Information Secur

CM Configuration Management

COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf

CP Contingency Planning

CPIC Capital Planning and Investment Contro

CSIR Computer Security Incident Respon

FEA Federal Enterpr

FIPS Federal Information Processing S

FIS Federal Information System CCAM

FISM Federal Information Security M

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accoun

GOTS Government Off-The-Shelf

E imination Act GP Government Paperwork El

GPRA Government Performance and Resu

ID Identification

IG Inspector General

IR Incident Response

ISSEA International Systems Securit

ISSO Information System S

ITL Information Technology Labo

MP Media Protection

NIST National Institute of Sta

OMB Office of Management and Budge

PE Physical and Environmental

PL Planning

POA&M Plan of Action and Mile

PRM Performance Referenc

PS Physical Sec

B-1

B-2

ergency Readiness Team

XML Extensible Markup Language

US-CERT United States Computer Em

Appendix C: REFERENCES

, 2nd International Systems Security

rd A Conference

Management

, February 10, 1996.

P.L 107-347),

199, Standards for Security Categorization of

quirements for

rmation Systems, March 2006.

t for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398).

GAO/AIMD-12.19.6, January 1996.

f Key

Information Security Terms, April, 2006.

00-18, Guide for

2006.

lication 800-30, Risk Management

ide for the

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.

Bartol N., Givans N., Measuring the “Goodness” of Security

Engineering Association (ISSEA) Conference Proceedings, February 200

Bartol N., Information Security Performance Measurement: Live, 3 ISSE

Proceedings, March 2002.

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (formerly known as the Information Technology

Reform Act)

E-Government Act, Title III—Federal Information Security Management Act (

December 2002.

Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)

Federal Information and Information Systems, February 2004.

Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 200, Minimum Security Re

Federal Information and Info

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Ac

General Accounting Office, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM)

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (PL. 103-62).

National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report 7298, Glossary o

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 8

Developing Security Plans and Information Technology Systems, February

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Pub

Guide for Information Technology Systems, June 2001.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-37, Gu

Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems, May 2004.

C-1

C-2

Special Publication 800-100, Information

urces, February

1, 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).

National Institute of Standards and Technology

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 Reso

8, 1996.

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-1

Appendix D: SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINIMUM SECURITY REQUIREMENTS14

ess to authorized

ting on behalf of authorized users, or devices (including other

t authorized users

anagers and users

mation security risks

ders, directives,

instructions, regulations, or procedures related to the information

organizational

security-related

itoring, analysis,

priate information

n system users can

r their actions.

ations must: (i)

s to

ols are effective in their application; (ii) develop and implement

vulnerabilities in

nizational

; and (iv) monitor

continued

f the controls.

and maintain

stems (including

pective information

rmation security

organizational

information systems.

• Contingency Planning (CP): Organizations must establish, maintain, and effectively

, 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)

• Access Control (AC): Organizations must limit information system acc

users, processes ac

information systems), and to the types of transactions and functions tha

are permitted to exercise.

• Awareness and Training (AT): Organizations must: (i) ensure that m

of organizational information systems are made aware of the infor

associated with their activities and of the applicable laws, Executive or

policies, standards,

security of organizational information systems; and (ii) ensure that

personnel are adequately trained to carry out their assigned information

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 mon

investigation, and reporting of unlawful, unauthorized, or inappro

system activity; and (ii) ensure that the actions of individual informatio

be uniquely traced to those users so that they can be held accountable fo

• Certification, Accreditation, and Security Assessments (CA): Organiz

periodically assess the security controls in organizational information system

determine if the contr

plans of action designed to correct deficiencies and reduce or eliminate

organizational information systems; (iii) authorize the operation of orga

information systems and any associated information system connections

information system security controls on an ongoing basis to ensure the

effectiveness o

• Configuration Management (CM): Organizations must: (i) establish

baseline configurations and inventories of organizational information sy

hardware, software, firmware, and documentation) throughout the res

system development life cycles; and (ii) establish and enforce info

configuration settings for information technology products employed in

implement plans for emergency response, backup operations

14 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

al incident

es adequate

tion, detection, analysis, containment, recovery, and user response activities; and

officials and/or

aintenance

s on the tools,

em maintenance.

ection (MP): Organizations must: (i) protect information system media, both

m media to

before disposal or

) limit physical

ective operating environments to

infrastructure for

tems; (iv)

ide appropriate

formation systems.

date, and ribe the

the rules of behavior

nel Security (PS): Organizations must: (i) ensure that individuals occupying

vice providers)

se positions; (ii)

otected during

ploy formal sanctions

urity policies and

to organizational

anizational assets, and

s 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.

organizational information systems.

• Incident Response (IR): Organizations must: (i) establish an operation

handling capability for organizational information systems that includ

prepara

(ii) track, document, and report incidents to appropriate organizational

authorities.

•Maintenance (MA): Organizations must: (i) perform periodic and timely m on organizational information systems; and (ii) provide effective control

techniques, mechanisms, and personnel used to conduct information syst

• Media Prot

paper and digital; (ii) limit access to information on information syste

authorized users; and (iii) sanitize or destroy information system media

release for reuse.

• Physical and Environmental Protection (PE): Organizations must: (i

access to information systems, equipment, and the resp

authorized individuals; (ii) protect the physical plant and support

information systems; (iii) provide supporting utilities for information sys

protect information systems against environmental hazards; and (v) prov

environmental controls in facilities containing in

• Planning (PL): Organizations must develop, document, periodically up

implement system security plans for organizational information systems that desc

security controls in place or planned for the information systems and

for individuals accessing the information systems.

• Person

positions of responsibility within organizations (including third-party ser

are trustworthy and meet established information security criteria for tho

ensure that organizational information and information systems are pr

personnel actions such as terminations and transfers; and (iii) em

for personnel failing to comply with organizational information sec

procedures.

• Risk Assessment (RA): Organizations must periodically assess the risk

operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), org

individuals resulting from the operation of organizational information system

D-2

D-3

st: (i) monitor,

transmitted or

aries and key

ectural designs,

rinciples that

ion systems.

y, report, and

at appropriate locations within organizational information

systems; and (iii) monitor information system security alerts and advisories and take

appropriate actions in response.

• System and Communications Protection (SC): Organizations mu

control, and protect organizational communications (i.e., information

received by organizational information systems) at the external bound

internal boundaries of the information systems; and (ii) employ archit

software development techniques, and information systems engineering p

promote effective information security within organizational informat

• System and Information Integrity (SI): Organizations must: (i) identif

correct information and information system flaws in a timely manner; (ii) provide

protection from malicious code

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

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation