Attachment_0020_R18_-_m07-19.pdf

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D .C . 20503

D E P U T Y D I R E C T O R F O R M A N A G E M E N T

July 25, 2007

M-07-19

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FROM: Clay Johnson III

Deputy Director for Management

SUBJECT: FY 2007 Reporting Instructions for the Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy Management

This memorandum provides instructions for meeting your agency’s FY 2007 reporting requirements under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) (Title III, Pub. L. No. 107-347). It also includes reporting instructions on your agency’s privacy management program.

Because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress use this report to evaluate agency-specific and Government-wide security performance, it is especially important your agency’s report clearly and accurately reflect the overall status of your program and not include conflicting views of, or unresolved differences among, the various parties contributing to the report including the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Inspector General (IG), and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy (SAOP).

Although the reporting categories and questions are generally the same as last year, there are some updates based on security and privacy policies issued within the last year. In particular, the plans required by OMB memorandum (M-07-16) of May 22, 2007, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information”1 should be provided in an appendix to your annual report and include the following items:

• Breach notification policy (Attachment 3);

• Implementation plan to eliminate unnecessary use of Social Security Numbers

(SSN) (Attachment 1);

• Implementation plan and progress update on review and reduction of holdings of personally identifiable information (PII) (Attachment 1); and

• Policy outlining rules of behavior and identifying consequences and corrective actions available for failure to follow these rules (Attachment 4).

Please send one formal copy of your report addressed to the Director of OMB and an electronic copy to fisma@omb.eop.gov by October 1, 2007. Each report must include a transmittal letter from the agency head reconciling any differences between the findings of the agency CIO, IG, and SAOP. The report must reflect the agency head’s

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf determination of the adequacy and effectiveness of information security and privacy policies, procedures, and practices. More details on reporting are found in the attachments to this memorandum. Your staff may contact Kristy LaLonde Daphnis, klalonde@omb.eop.gov, regarding security questions or Hillary Fielden, hfielden@omb.eop.gov, regarding privacy questions.

Attachments

• Instructions for Preparing the FISMA Report and Agency Privacy Management Report

• Reporting Template for Micro Agencies (Excel, 77 kb)

• Reporting Template for CIOs (Excel, 117 kb)

• Reporting Template for IGs (Excel, 112 kb)

• Reporting Template for SAOPs (Excel, 202 kb)

• Quarterly Reporting Template (Excel, 132 kb) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19_microagency.xls http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19_section_b_cio_template.xls http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19_section_c_iq_template.xls http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19_section_d_saop_template.xls http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19_fy08_quarterly_fisma_reporting_template.xls

FY 2007 Reporting Instructions for the

Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy Management

Table of Contents

Section A - Instructions for Completing the Annual Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Agency Privacy Management Report........................................................................ Page 1

This section contains instructions, frequently asked questions, and definitions to aid Chief Information Officers (CIO), Inspectors General (IG), and Senior Agency Officials for Privacy (SAOP) in preparing and submitting the annual FISMA and Privacy Management Report.

Section B– Reporting Template for CIOs...………………….. Page 24

This section contains instructions for CIOs to complete the annual

FISMA reporting template (attached).

Section C– Reporting Template for IGs ……………………... Page 29

This section contains instructions for IGs to complete the annual

FISMA reporting template (attached).

Section D – Reporting Template for SAOPs………………...... Page 36

This section contains instructions for SAOPs to complete the annual privacy reporting template (attached). The template in this attachment shall be completed by all agencies.

Section A - Instructions for Completing the Annual Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Agency Privacy Management Report

This section contains instructions for annual FISMA and privacy reporting. The reporting templates are contained in Sections B, C, and D. Each of the templates are to be completed by the appropriate agency officials, as part of one combined report signed by the agency head and transmitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by October 1, 2007. In addition to formal transmission, an electronic copy of the report should be sent to fisma@omb.eop.gov. All parts of the report should be transmitted in the contents of one single e-mail.

Each agency head’s annual report to OMB shall comprise:

1. Transmittal letter from the agency head reconciling any differences between the findings of the agency CIO, IG, and SAOP. The report must reflect the agency head’s determination of the adequacy and effectiveness of information security and privacy policies, procedures, and practices.

2. Section B Template completed by the CIO – Summarizing the results of annual IT security reviews of systems and programs.

3. Section C Template completed by the IG – Summarizing the results of the

IG’s independent evaluation.

4. Section D Template completed by the SAOP – Summarizing the status of agency compliance with privacy laws and policies.

Agency reports shall be based on the results of the annual system and program reviews, the agency’s work in correcting weaknesses identified in their Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms), and any other work performed throughout the reporting period.

IGs are encouraged to provide any additional narrative in an appendix to the report to the extent they provide meaningful insight into the status of the agency’s security or privacy program.

Incomplete reporting on OMB’s performance measures will be noted in OMB’s public report to Congress and will be a consideration in OMB’s annual approval or disapproval of the agency’s security program. When completing the reporting template, agencies should refer to the definitions section provided.

mailto:fisma@omb.eop.gov

Frequently Asked Questions

Sending to Congress and GAO

1. When should my agency send our annual report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)?

After review by and notification from OMB, agencies shall forward their transmittal letter with report sections B, C, and D to the appropriate Congressional Committees and GAO. Transmittal of agency reports to Congress shall be made by, or be consistent with guidance from, the agency’s Congressional or Legislative Affairs office to the following:

Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Science and Technology of the House, the Committees on Government Affairs and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Congressional authorization and appropriations committees for each individual agency. In prior years, the Committees have provided to OMB specific points of contact for receiving the reports. As in the past, if such are provided to OMB, we will notify the agencies.

Submission Instructions and Templates

2. Which template should my agency use to fill out the annual and quarterly reports?

All Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies and agencies participating in the President's Management Agenda scorecard process (i.e., agencies with E-Government scorecards) should complete the annual report and submit quarterly updates to OMB.

Quarterly updates are due to OMB by September 1, December 1, March 1, and June 1.

All materials should be submitted to the OMB FISMA mailbox at fisma@omb.eop.gov

All other agencies should provide OMB only the annual report. Agencies should be prepared to provide information or submit quarterly reports to OMB upon request, however. Microagencies (i.e., agencies employing 100 or fewer FTEs) should use the abbreviated Excel spreadsheet (see Reporting Template for Microagencies attached) for their annual report.

3. When should program officials, SAOPs, CIOs, and IGs share the results of their reviews?

While the goal of FISMA is stronger agency- and Government-wide security, information regarding an agency’s information security program should be shared as it becomes available. This helps promote timely correction of weaknesses in the agency’s information systems and resolution of issues. Waiting until the completion of a report or the year’s end does not promote stronger information system security.

4. Should agencies set an internal FISMA reporting cut-off date?

Yes. OMB suggests agencies set an internal cut-off date for data collection and report preparation. A cut-off date should permit adequate time for meaningful internal review and comment and resolution of any disputes before finalizing the agency’s report to OMB. However, with respect to an IG’s review of the CIO’s or SAOP’s work product, such review does not in itself fulfill FISMA’s requirement for IGs to independently evaluate an agency’s program including testing the effectiveness of a representative subset of the agency’s information systems.

Security Reporting

5. Does the FISMA quarterly report represent cumulative totals of security and privacy information or show just a snapshot of the agency’s inventory?

Agencies should report the cumulative total on each of their quarterly reports. For example, in Q1, an agency may report 497 systems containing Federal information in identifiable form. If the agency adds five systems during the following quarter, then the Q2 report would include 502 systems containing Federal information in identifiable form.

6. Must agencies report at both an agency wide level and by individual component?

Yes. Agencies must provide an overall agency view of their security and privacy program but most of the topic areas also require specific responses for each of the major components (e.g., bureaus or operating divisions). Thus, the agencies’ and OMB’s report can distinguish good performing components from poor performers and more accurately reflect the overall agency performance.

For agencies with extensive field and regional offices, it is not necessary to report to OMB on the security performance of each of the field offices. Rather, agencies shall confirm the security program of the major component which operates the field offices is:

1) effectively overseeing and measuring field performance; 2) including any weaknesses in the agency-wide POA&M; and 3) developing, implementing, and maintaining system-level POA&Ms.

7. Should all of my agency’s information systems be included as part of our FISMA report?

Yes. Section 3544(a)(1)(A) states: “The head of each agency shall be responsible for providing information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of (i) information collected or maintained by or on behalf of the agency; and

(ii) information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.” Your agency’s annual FISMA report therefore summarizes the performance of your agency’s program to secure all of your agency’s information and information systems, in any form or format, whether automated or manual. NIST Special Publication 800-37 provides guidance on establishing information system boundaries which can help you identify your systems.

8. Must the Department of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) follow OMB policy and NIST guidance?

Provided DoD and DNI internal security standards and policies are as stringent as OMB’s policies and NIST’s standards, they must only follow OMB’s reporting policies.

9. What reporting is required for national security systems?

FISMA requires annual reviews and reporting of all systems, including national security systems. Agencies can choose to provide responses to the questions in the template either in aggregate with or separate from their non-national security systems.

Agencies shall describe how they are implementing the requirements of FISMA for national security systems. When management and internal control oversight of an agency’s national security programs and systems are handled differently than non-national security programs, a description of and explanation for the differences is required. DoD and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall report on compliance with their policies and guidance.

The CIO for the (DNI) reports on systems processing or storing sensitive compartmentalized information (SCI) across the intelligence community and those other systems for which the DNI is the principal accrediting authority. Agencies shall follow the intelligence community reporting guidance for these systems. SCI systems shall only be reported via the intelligence community report. However, this separate reporting does not alter an agency head’s responsibility for overseeing the security of all operations and assets of the agency or component. Therefore, copies of separate reporting must also be provided to the agency head for their use.

To assist oversight by appropriate national security authorities, it is important to specify where practicable which portion of the agency report pertains to national security systems.

NIST Guidance and Standards

10. Is use of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications required?

Yes. For non-national security programs and information systems, agencies must follow NIST standards and guidance.

11. Is NIST guidance flexible?

Yes. While agencies are required to follow NIST standards and guidance in accordance with OMB policy, there is flexibility within NIST’s guidance documents (specifically in the 800-series) in how agencies apply the guidance. However, NIST standards, or Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) are mandatory. Unless specified by additional implementing policy by OMB, guidance documents published by NIST generally allow agencies latitude in their application. Consequently, the application of NIST guidance by agencies can result in different security solutions that are equally acceptable and compliant with the guidance.

General

12. Are the security requirements outlined in the Act limited to information in electronic form?

No. Section 3541 of FISMA provides the Act’s security requirements apply to “information and information systems” without distinguishing by form or format;

therefore, the security requirements outlined in FISMA apply to Federal information in all forms and formats (including electronic, paper, audio, etc.).

13. Does OMB give equal weight to the assessments by the agency and the IG? What if the two parties disagree?

Yes, OMB gives equal weight to both assessments. In asking different questions of each party, OMB seeks complementary and not conflicting reporting. Inasmuch as OMB guidance requires a single report from each agency, OMB expects the report to represent the consolidated views of the agency and not separate views of various reviewers. All disagreements should be resolved prior to reporting to OMB.

14. FISMA, OMB policy, and NIST guidance require agency security programs to be risk-based. Who is responsible for deciding the acceptable level of risk (e.g., the CIO, program officials and system owners, or the IG)? Are the IGs' independent evaluations also to be risk-based? What if they disagree?

The agency head ultimately is responsible for deciding the acceptable level of risk for their agency. System owners, program officials, and CIOs provide input for this decision. Such decisions must reflect policies from OMB and standards and guidance from NIST (particularly FIPS 199 and FIPS 200). An information system’s designated approving authority takes responsibility for accepting any residual risk, thus they are held accountable for managing the security for that system.

IG evaluations are intended to independently assess if the agency is applying a risk-based approach to their information security programs and the information systems that support the conduct of agency missions and business functions. When reviewing the Certification and Accreditation (C&A) of an individual system, for example, the IG would generally assess whether: 1) the C&A was performed in the manner prescribed in NIST guidance and agency policy; 2) controls are being implemented as stated in any planning documentation; and 3) continuous monitoring is adequate given the system impact level of the system and information. Any disagreements among various program officials, the CIO, and/or the IG would be an internal agency matter and resolved consistent with guidance from the agency head.

15. Could you provide examples of high impact systems?

In some respects, the answer to this question is unique to each agency depending on their mission requirements. At the same time, some examples are relatively obvious and common to all agencies. As a rebuttable presumption, all cyber critical infrastructure and key resources identified in an agency’s Homeland Security Policy Directive – 7 (HSPD-

7) plans are high impact, as are all systems identified as necessary to support agency continuity of operations. Systems necessary for continuity of operations purposes include, for example, telecommunications systems identified in agency reviews under OMB’s June 30, 2005, memorandum M-05-16, “Regulation on Maintaining Telecommunications Service During Crisis or Emergency in Federally-owned Buildings,” implementing Section 414 the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Division H of Public Law 108-447).

Additionally, information systems used by agencies to provide services to other agencies such as under e-Government initiatives and lines of business, could also be high impact, but are at least moderate impact. The decision as to information system impact level in this circumstance must be agreed to by the provider and all of its customers.

16. My IG says the agency’s inventory of major information systems is less than 96% complete. How do I reconcile the differing lists?

OMB expects agency IGs to provide to the agency CIO and OMB the list of systems they’ve identified as not being part of the agency’s inventory.

17. When OMB asks if an agency has a process, are you also asking if the process is implemented and is effective?

Yes. OMB wants to know whether processes are working effectively to safeguard information and information systems. An ineffective process cannot be relied upon to achieve its information security and privacy objectives. To gauge the effectiveness of a particular IT security program process, we rely on responses to questions asked of the agency IG.

18. We often find security weaknesses requiring additional and significant resources to correct such discoveries seldom coincide with the budget process; can we delay correction until the next budget cycle?

No. Agencies must plan for security needs as they develop new and operate existing systems and as security weaknesses are identified.

OMB’s policies regarding information security funding were articulated in OMB Memorandum M-00-07 dated February 28, 2000. They remain in effect, were repeated in OMB Memorandum M-06-19, and are included in OMB’s budget preparation guidance, i.e., Circular A-11. In brief, agencies must do two specific things. First, they must integrate security into and fund it over the lifecycle of each system as it is developed.

This requirement was codified in section 3544(b)(2)(C) of FISMA. Second, the operations of legacy (steady-state) systems must meet security requirements before funds are spent on new systems (development, modernization or enhancement).

As an example of this policy in practice, if an agency has a legacy system not currently certified and accredited, or for which a contingency plan has not been tested, these actions must be completed before spending funds on a new system. A simple way to accomplish this is to redirect the relatively modest costs of C&A or contingency plan testing from the funds intended for development, modernization or enhancement.

OMB recognizes other unanticipated security needs may arise from time-to-time. In such cases, agencies should prioritize available resources to correct the most significant weaknesses. Correcting such weaknesses would still be required prior to spending funds on development on an interim basis, and NIST’s Special Publication 800-53 “Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems” provides guidance for using these compensating controls.

19. You are no longer asking agencies to report significant deficiencies in the annual FISMA report. Don't we have to report them?

Not in your annual FISMA report to OMB. However, agencies must maintain all documentation supporting a finding of a significant deficiency or material weakness and make it available in a timely manner upon request by OMB or other oversight authorities.

FISMA requires agencies to report a significant deficiency as: 1) a material weakness under FMFIA, and 2) an instance of a lack of substantial compliance under FFMIA, if related to financial management systems. (See OMB Circular A-123 for further information on reporting significant deficiencies.) As you know, all security weaknesses (including those identified as a significant deficiency or material weakness) must be included in and tracked on your plan of action and milestones.

A significant deficiency is defined as a weakness in an agency’s overall information systems security program or management control structure, or within one or more information systems that significantly restricts the capability of the agency to carry out its mission or compromises the security of its information, information systems, personnel, or other resources, operations, or assets. In this context, the risk is great enough that the agency head and outside agencies must be notified and immediate or near-immediate corrective action must be taken.

20. Should my agency's regulatory and information collection activities apply FISMA and privacy requirements?

Yes and Federal regulatory and information collection activities depend upon quality information protected from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction.

Federal regulatory and information collection activities often require Federal agencies, and entities (e.g., contractors, private companies, non-profit organizations) which operate on behalf of Federal agencies, to collect, create, process, or maintain Federal government information. When developing regulations, agencies must ensure information security and privacy law and policy are applied where appropriate. Your agency's information collection activities (subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's rule providing implementing guidance found at 5 CFR 1320), including those activities conducted or sponsored by other entities on behalf of your agency, must also ensure procedures for adequately securing and safeguarding Federal information are consistent with existing law and policy.

If your agency promulgates regulations requiring entities which operate on behalf of your agency to collect, create, process, or maintain Federal information, then procedures established by the regulation for adequately securing and safeguarding this information must be consistent with existing law and policy (e.g., FISMA, the Privacy Act, the E-Gov Act, OMB security and privacy policy, and NIST standards and guidance), regardless of whether the information is being held at the Agency or with the entity collecting, processing, or maintaining the information on behalf of the agency.

21. Are agencies allowed to utilize data services in the private sector, including "software as a service" and "software subscription" type solutions?

Yes. Agencies are permitted to utilize these types of agreements and arrangements, provided appropriate security controls are implemented, tested, and reviewed as part of your agency’s information security program. We encourage agencies to seek out and utilize private sector, market-driven solutions resulting in cost savings and performance improvements − provided agency information is protected to the degree required by FISMA, FISMA implementing standards, and associated guidance. As with other contractor services and relationships, agencies should include these software solutions and subscriptions as they complete their annual security reviews.

22. How do agencies ensure FISMA compliance for connections to non-agency systems?

Do Statement of Auditing Standards No. 70 (SAS 70) audits meet the requirements of FISMA and implementing policies and guidance?

NIST Special Publication 800-47 "Security Guide for Interconnecting Information Technology Systems" (August 2002) provides a management approach for interconnecting IT systems, with an emphasis on security. The document recommends development of an Interconnection Security Agreement (ISA) and a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU). The ISA specifies the technical and security requirements of the interconnection, and the MOU defines the responsibilities of the participating organizations. The security guide recommends regular communications between the organizations throughout the life cycle of the interconnection. One or both organizations shall review the security controls for the interconnection at least annually or whenever a significant change occurs to ensure the controls are operating properly and are providing appropriate levels of protection.

Security reviews may be conducted by designated audit authorities of one or both organizations, or by an independent third party. Both organizations shall agree on the rigor and frequency of reviews as well as a reporting process.

SAS 70 audits may or may not meet the requirements of FISMA. The private sector relies on Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 70, to ensure among other purposes compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, requiring management assessment of internal controls. While SAS 70 reports may be sufficient to determine contractor compliance with OMB Circular A-123 and financial statement audit requirements, it is not a pre-determined set of control objectives or control activities, and therefore is not in itself sufficient to meet FISMA requirements. In addition, it is not always clear the extent to which specific systems supporting the Government activity or contract are actually reviewed as part of a particular audit. In determining whether SAS 70 reports provide sufficient evidence of contractor system FISMA compliance, it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure:

• The scope of the SAS 70 audit was sufficient, and fully addressed the specific contractor system requiring FISMA review.

• The audit encompassed all controls and requirements of law, OMB policy and NIST guidance.

To reduce burden on agencies and service providers and increase efficiency, agencies and IGs should share with their counterparts at other agencies any assessment described above.

C&A

23. Why place such an emphasis on the C&A of agency information systems?

The C&A process when applied to agency information systems, provides a systematic approach for assessing security controls to determine their overall effectiveness; that is, the extent to which operational, technical, and managerial security controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the security requirements for the system. Understanding the overall effectiveness of the security controls implemented in the information system is essential in determining the risk to the organization’s operations and assets, to individuals, to other organizations, and to the nation resulting from the use of the system.

Agencies are reminded the C&A process is more than just planning. The continuous monitoring phase of the C&A process (discussed in NIST Special Publications 800-37 and 800-53) must include an appropriate set of management, operational, and technical controls including controls over physical access to systems and information. Agency officials and IGs should be advised of the results of this monitoring as appropriate. OMB asks CIOs to present a quantitative assessment and the IGs a qualitative assessment of the C&A process.

24. Is C&A required for all information systems? OMB Circular A-130 requires authorization to process only for general support systems and major applications.

Yes, C&A is required for all Federal information systems. Section 3544(b)(3) of FISMA refers to “subordinate plans for providing adequate information security for networks, facilities, and systems or groups of information systems” and does not distinguish between major or other applications. Smaller “systems” and “applications” may be included as part of the assessment of a larger system-as allowable in NIST guidance and provided an appropriate risk assessment is completed and security controls are implemented.

25. Does OMB recognize interim authority to operate for C&A?

No. The C&A process has been required for many years, and it is important to measure the implementation of this process to improve consistency and quality Government-wide.

Introducing additional inconsistency to the Government’s security program would be counter to FISMA’s goals.

Testing

26. Must all agency information systems be tested and evaluated annually?

Yes, all information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency must be tested at least annually.

FISMA (section 3544(b)(5)) requires each agency to perform for all systems “periodic testing and evaluation of the effectiveness of information security policies, procedures, and practices, to be performed with a frequency depending on risk, but no less than annually.” This review shall include the testing of management, operational, and technical controls.

27. How can agencies meet the annual testing and evaluation (review) requirement?

To satisfy the annual FISMA assessment requirement, organizations can draw upon the security control assessment results from any of the following sources, including but not limited to:

• security certifications conducted as part of an information system accreditation or re-accreditation process;

• continuous monitoring activities; or

• testing and evaluation of the information system as part of the ongoing system development life cycle process (provided that the testing and evaluation results are current and relevant to the determination of security control effectiveness).

Existing security assessment results can be reused to the extent that they are still valid and are supplemented with additional assessments as needed. Reuse of assessment information is critical in achieving a broad-based, cost-effective, and fully integrated security program capable of producing the needed evidence to determine the actual security status of the information system.

FISMA does not require an annual assessment of all security controls employed in an organizational information system. In accordance with OMB policy, organizations must determine the necessary depth and breadth of an annual review and assess a subset of the security controls based on several factors, including: (i) the FIPS 199 security categorization of the information system; (ii) the specific security controls selected and employed by the organization to protect the information system; (iii) the relative comprehensiveness of the most recent past review, (iv) the adequacy and successful implementation of the plan of action and milestone (POA&M) for weaknesses in the system, (v) advice from IGs or US-CERT on threats and vulnerabilities at your agency, and (vi) the level of assurance (or confidence) that the organization must have in determining the effectiveness of the security controls in the information system, among others.

It is expected agencies will assess all of the security controls in the information system during the three-year accreditation cycle, and agencies can use the current year’s assessment results obtained during security certification to meet the annual FISMA assessment requirement.

28. What NIST guidance must agencies use for their annual testing and evaluations?

For FY 2007 and beyond, agencies are required to use FIPS 200/NIST Special Publication 800-53 for the specification of security controls and NIST Special Publications 800-37 and 800-53A for the assessment of security control effectiveness.

DoD and DNI may use their internal policies, directives and guidance provided that they are as stringent as the NIST security standards.

29. Why should agencies conduct continuous monitoring of their security controls?

Continuous monitoring of security controls is a cost-effective and important part of managing enterprise risk and maintaining an accurate understanding of the security risks confronting your agency’s information systems. Continuous monitoring of security controls is required as part of the security C&A process to ensure controls remain effective over time (e.g., after the initial authorization or reauthorization of an information system) in the face of changing threats, missions, environments of operation, and technologies.

Agencies should develop an enterprise-wide strategy for selecting subsets of their security controls to be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure all controls are assessed during the three-year accreditation cycle. A robust and effective continuous monitoring program will ensure important procedures included in an agency’s accreditation package (e.g., as described in system security plans, security assessment reports, and POAMs) are updated as appropriate and contain the necessary information for authorizing officials to make credible risk-based decisions regarding the security state of the information system on an ongoing basis. This will help make the C&A process more dynamic and responsive to today’s federal missions and rapidly changing conditions. NIST Special Publications 800-37, 800-53, and 800-53A provide guidance on continuous monitoring programs.

30. Do agencies need to test and evaluate (review) security controls on low impact information systems?

Yes. While the depth and breadth of security controls testing and evaluation (review) will vary based on information system risk and system impact level, agencies are required to do annual testing and evaluation (review) of ALL systems. NIST Special Publications 800-37 and 800-53A provide guidance on assessment of security controls in low-impact information systems.

Configuration Management

31. What are minimally acceptable system configuration requirements?

FISMA (section 3544(b)(2)(D)(iii)) requires each agency to develop minimally acceptable system configuration requirements and ensure compliance with them.

Common security configurations provide a baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and vulnerabilities, and save time and resources. This allows agencies to improve system performance, decrease operating costs, and ensure public confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of Government information.

Agencies are to cite the frequency by which they implement system configuration requirements. Security configuration checklists are now available for computer software widely used within the Federal Government, and they can be found on the NIST Computer Security Division web site (see: http://checklists.nist.gov) as well as the NSA System and Network Attack Center web site. Agencies must document and provide NIST with any deviations from the common security configurations (send documentation to checklists@nist.gov) and be prepared to justify why they are not using them. IGs should review such use.

OMB recently issued policy for agencies to adopt security configurations for Windows XP and VISTA, as well as policy for ensuring new acquisitions include common security mailto:checklists@nist.gov configurations. For more information, see OMB Memorandum M-07-11 “Implementation of Commonly Accepted Security Configurations for Windows Operating Systems,” at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07- 11.pdf, and OMB Memorandum M-07-18 “Ensuring New Acquisitions Include Common Security Configurations,” at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07- 18.pdf, respectively.

32. Why must agencies explain their performance metrics in terms of FIPS 199 categories?

FISMA directed NIST to develop a standard to categorize all information and information systems based upon the need to provide appropriate levels of information security according to a range of risk levels. “Federal Information Processing Standard 199: Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems” (February 2004) defines three levels of potential impact on organizations or individuals should there be a breach of security (i.e., a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability). These impact levels are: low, moderate and high. Agencies must categorize their information and information systems using one of these three categories in order to comply with the minimum security requirements described in FIPS 200 and to determine which security controls in NIST Special Publication 800-53 are required. While NIST guidance does not apply to national security systems nor DoD nor DNI, OMB expects all agencies to implement a reasonably similar process.

POA&M

33. What is required of agency POA&Ms?

As outlined in previous guidance (OMB M-04-25, "FY 2004 Reporting Instructions for the Federal Information Security Management Act") agency POA&Ms must:

1) Be tied to the agency’s budget submission through the unique project identifier of a system. This links the security costs for a system with the security performance of a system.

2) Include all security weaknesses found during any other review done by, for, or on behalf of the agency, including GAO audits, financial system audits, and critical infrastructure vulnerability assessments. These plans should be the authoritative agency-wide management tool, inclusive of all evaluations.

3) Be shared with the agency IG to ensure independent verification and validation of identified weaknesses and completed corrective actions.

4) Be submitted to OMB upon request.

While agencies are no longer required to follow the exact format prescribed in the POA&M examples in M-04-25, they must still include all of the associated data elements in their POA&Ms. To facilitate compliance with POA&M reporting requirements, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-11.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-11.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-18.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-18.pdf agencies may choose to utilize the FISMA reporting services of a Shared Service Center as part of the Information Security Line of Business.

34. Can a POA&M process be effective even when correcting identified weaknesses is untimely?

Yes. The purpose of a POA&M is to identify and track security weaknesses in one location. A POA&M permits agency officials and oversight authorities to identify when documented corrective actions are both timely and untimely. In either circumstance, the POA&M has served its intended purpose. Agency managers can use the POA&M process to focus resources to resolve delays.

Contractor Monitoring and Controls

35. Must Government contractors abide by FISMA requirements?

Yes, and each agency must ensure their contractors are doing so. Section 3544(a)(1)(A)(ii) describes Federal agency security responsibilities as including “information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.” Section 3544(b) requires each agency to provide information security for the information and “information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source.” This includes services which are either fully or partially provided, including agency hosted, outsourced, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions.

Because FISMA applies to both information and information systems used by the agency, contractors, and other organizations and sources, it has somewhat broader applicability than prior security law. That is, agency information security programs apply to all organizations (sources) which possess or use Federal information – or which operate, use, or have access to Federal information systems (whether automated or manual) – on behalf of a Federal agency. Such other organizations may include contractors, grantees, State and local Governments, industry partners, providers of software subscription services, etc. FISMA, therefore, underscores longstanding OMB policy concerning sharing Government information and interconnecting systems.

Therefore, Federal security requirements continue to apply and the agency is responsible for ensuring appropriate security controls (see OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III).

Agencies must develop policies for information security oversight of contractors and other users with privileged access to Federal data. Agencies must also review the security of other users with privileged access to Federal data and systems.

Finally, because FISMA applies to Federal information and information systems, in certain limited circumstances its requirements also apply to a specific class of information technology to which Clinger-Cohen did not, i.e., “equipment that is acquired by a Federal contractor incidental to a Federal contract.” Therefore, when Federal information is used within incidentally acquired equipment, the agency continues to be responsible and accountable for ensuring FISMA requirements are met.

36. Could you provide examples of “incidental” contractor equipment which is not subject to FISMA?

In considering the answer to this question, it is essential to remember FISMA requires agencies to provide security protections "...commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information collected or maintained by or on behalf of the agency; and information systems used or operated by an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency." This includes services which are either fully or partially provided by another source, including agency hosted, outsourced, and SaaS solutions.

A corporate human resource or financial management system acquired solely to assist managing corporate resources assigned to a Government contract could be incidental, provided the system does not use agency information or interconnect with an agency system.

37. Could you provide examples of agency security responsibilities concerning contractors and other sources?

FISMA requires agencies to provide security protections "...commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information collected or maintained by or on behalf of the agency; and information systems used or operated by an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency." This includes full or partial operations.

While we cannot anticipate all possible combinations and permutations, there are five primary categories of contractors as they relate to securing systems and information: 1) service providers, 2) contractor support, 3) Government Owned, Contractor Operated facilities (GOCO), 4) laboratories and research centers, and 5) management and operating contracts.

1) Service providers -- this encompasses typical outsourcing of system or network operations, telecommunications services, or other managed services (including those provided by another agency and subscribing to software services).

Agencies are fully responsible and accountable for ensuring all FISMA and related policy requirements are implemented and reviewed and such must be included in the terms of the contract. Agencies must ensure identical, not "equivalent," security procedures. For example, annual reviews, risk assessments, security plans, control testing, contingency planning, and C&A must, at a minimum, explicitly meet guidance from NIST. Additionally, IGs shall include some contractor systems in their “representative subset of agency systems,” and not doing so presents an incomplete independent evaluation.

Agencies and IGs should to the maximum extent practicable, consult with other agencies using the same service provider, share security review results, and avoid the unnecessary burden on the service provider and the agencies resulting from duplicative reviews and re-reviews. Additionally, provided they meet FISMA and policy requirements, agencies and IGs should accept all or part of the results of industry-specific security reviews performed by an independent auditor on the commercial service provider.

In the case of agency service providers, they must work with their customer agencies to develop suitable arrangements for meeting all of FISMA’s requirements, including any special requirements for one or more particular customer agencies. Any arrangements should also provide for an annual evaluation by the IG of one agency.

Thereafter, the results of that IG evaluation would be shared with all customer agencies and their respective IGs.

2) Contractor support -- this encompasses on- or off-site contractor technical or other support staff.

Agencies are fully responsible and accountable for ensuring all FISMA and related policy requirements are implemented and reviewed and such must be included in the terms of the contract. Agencies must ensure identical, not "equivalent," security procedures. Specifically, the agency is responsible for ensuring the contractor personnel receive appropriate training (i.e., user awareness training and training on agency policy and procedures).

3) Government Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) -- For the purposes of FISMA, GOCO facilities are agency components and their security requirements are identical to those of the managing Federal agency in all respects. Security requirements must be included in the terms of the contract.

4) Laboratories and research facilities -- For the purposes of FISMA, laboratories and research facilities are agency components and their security requirements are identical to those of the managing Federal agency in all respects. Security requirements must be included in the terms of the contract or other similar agreement.

5) Management and Operating Contracts – For the purposes of FISMA, management and operating contracts include contracts for the operation, maintenance, or support of a Government-owned or -controlled research, development, special production, or testing establishment.

38. Should agencies include FISMA requirements in grants and contracts?

Yes, as with the Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000, agency contracts including but not limited to those for IT services must reflect FISMA requirements.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, Subpart 7.1—Acquisition Plans, requires heads of agencies to ensure agency planners on information technology acquisitions comply with the information technology security requirements in the Federal Information Security Management Act (44 U.S.C. 3544), OMB’s implementing policies including Appendix III of OMB Circular A-130, and guidance and standards from NIST.

When applicable, agencies must also include FISMA’s security requirements in the terms and conditions of grants.

39. How deeply into contractor, state, or grantee systems must a FISMA review reach?

To the application, to the interface between the application and their network, or into the corporate network/infrastructure?

This question has a two-part answer. First, FISMA’s requirements follow agency information into any system which uses it or processes it on behalf of the agency. That is, when the ultimate responsibility and accountability for control of the information continues to reside with the agency, FISMA applies. Second, with respect to system interconnections, as a general rule, OMB assumes agency responsibility and accountability extends to the interface between Government systems (or contractor systems performing functions on behalf of the agency) and corporate systems and networks. For example, a corporate network, human resource, or financial management system would not be covered by FISMA requirements, provided the agency has confirmed appropriate security of the interface between them and any system using Government information or those operating on behalf of the agency. See also the discussions concerning interconnection agreements and C&A boundaries.

40. Are all information systems operated by a contractor on behalf of an agency subject to the same type of C&A process?

Yes, they must be addressed in the same way. As with agency-operated systems, the level of effort required for C&A depends on the impact level of the information contained on each system. C&A of a system with an impact level of low will be less rigorous and costly than a system with a higher impact level.