Navy RMF M4 RMFStep2SelectSecurityControlsV1.1
Navy RMF M4 RMFStep2SelectSecurityControlsV1.1
Version 1.1
UNCLASSIFIED 1
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Training Plan
Session F – RMF Step 3 Session G – RMF Step 4 Session H – RMF Step 5/6
Module 5: RMF Step 3 Implement Module 6: RMF Step 4 Assess Module 7: RMF Step 5 Authorize
Security Controls Security Controls System
Module 27: eMASS Risk Module 8: RMF Step 6 Monitor
Assessment Security Controls
UNCLASSIFIED 2
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Objective
3
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
DoD RMF Process
UNCLASSIFIED 4
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Process Changes
DIACAP RMF
Initiate & Plan IA C&A Categorization: Security Objectives
Mission Assurance Category (MAC) Confidentiality (C)
Confidentiality Level (CL) Integrity (I)
Availability (A)
IA Control Selection Security Control Selection
IA Controls determined based on MAC/CL Security Controls determined by Impact Codes
Augment IA Controls Overlays to complement /refine security control
baselines
Completed by Validator Determined by PM w/out NQV
Many requirements to one control More controls with single requirements
IATO ATO With Conditions
IATT – Issued without CD IATT – Requires SAR
Roles & Responsibilities Roles & Responsibilities
Validator: Completed tasking for PM & ISSM Validator: SCA “Trusted Agent”
User Representative - Consulted Information Owner – Active Participant
Optional DIP Concurrence Mandatory Step 2 Checkpoint
Mandatory Activity 3 Collaboration Mandatory Step 5 Checkpoint
Static Package Artifacts after C&A Information System Continuous
Monitoring (ISCM)
UNCLASSIFIED 5
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Terminology Changes
DIACAP RMF
Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Assess and Authorize (A&A)
Designated Approving Authority (DAA) Authorizing Official (AO)
Action Officer (AO) Cyber Security Analyst (CSA)
Collaboration Checkpoint
UNCLASSIFIED 6
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Navy RMF Workflow
UNCLASSIFIED 7
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Roles and Responsibilities
UNCLASSIFIED 8
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Select Baseline Security Controls
9
Selected based on the results of categorization
– Coordinated effort between ISSE and PM/ISO
– The ISSM and Echelon II provide support
– AO CSA, validator, and SCA Liaison provide consultation and approval
• Navy Control Selection Form
– Optional tool to assist in the selection process
– Final security control selection is entered into eMASS
• Security Category (SC) = based on CIA high water mark
SC information system = {(confidentiality, impact), (integrity, impact), (availability, impact)}
9
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Baseline Controls Cont.
9 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 - Security Control Source
– Contains 958 Security Controls and Control Enhancements
– H/H/H Baseline contains 478 Security Controls and Enhancements
– All other baselines contain fewer than 478
– Non-baseline controls are added during tailoring if applicable
• CNSSI 1253 - Security Control Baseline Source
– All DoD systems will be treated as NSS for the purposed of establishing
security control baselines as a common reference point
• Transition Note:
– Due to noted inconsistencies between the DoD RMF Knowledge Service
(KS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4, CNSSI 1253 and eMASS it is recommended
the KS Security Control Explorer be used to generate the baseline control
spreadsheet for manual validation and eMASS entry.
– The DoD RMF KS is considered the authoritative source
10
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Security Control Baseline Distribution
C H H M L L H H M L L H H M L L
478 457 454 432 426 463 440 403 397 375 443 420 383 397 310
C H M M M L H M M M L H M M M L
I H H M L L H H M L L H H M L L
478 475 446 426 397 457 454 403 383 354 435 432 381 375 310
UNCLASSIFIED 11
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Security Control Family
12
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Security Control Structure
13
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Security Control Example
14
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Security Control Baseline Example
15
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Overlays
10 Overlays are tailored guidance to baseline security
controls established for community-wide use to:
– Address Specialized Requirements
– Technologies
– Unique Missions/Environments of Operation
• Categories of Overlays
– Communities of interest (healthcare, intelligence, law enforcement, etc.)
– Information technologies/computing paradigms (cloud/mobile, CDS, etc.)
– Environments of operation (space, tactical, RDT&E, etc.)
– Types of information systems and operating modes (industrial control
systems, weapons systems, single-user systems, standalone, etc.)
– Types of mission/operations (counterterrorism, RDT&E, etc.)
– Statutory/regulatory requirements (HIPA, Privacy Act, etc.)
16
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Tailor Security Controls
10 Includes:
– Applying scoping considerations
– Selecting compensating controls, if needed
– Assigning specific values to security control parameters
– Supplementing initial baselines with additional controls/enhancements
– Providing additional information for control implementation
– Identifying and designating common controls
*NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 Note*
”Organizations do NOT remove security controls for operational convenience”
Select Baseline
Security Controls
Tailor Security Identify Common
Controls
(eMASS) Controls
17
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Apply Scoping Considerations
10 Eliminate unnecessary security controls from initial
baseline controls
– All not-applicable justifications align under one of the following
considerations:
• Control Allocation and Placement Considerations*
• Operational/Environmental-Related Considerations *
• Security Objective-Related Considerations *
• Technology Related Considerations
• Mission Requirements-Related Considerations *
– Must provide justification why baseline security controls could not be
employed
18
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Select Compensating Security Controls
10 Alternative security controls employed in lieu of
specific controls
– Provide equivalent or comparable protection
– Necessary due to:
• Specific nature of the information system
• Environments of operation
• Not cost-effective means to meet risk mitigation
– Selected after applying scoping considerations
– Must provide supporting rationale for equivalency
– Organizations assess and accept the risk associated with implementing
compensating controls
19
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Assigning Security Control Parameter
10 Assign security control and control enhancement
embedded parameters, per:
– Federal Laws
– Executive Orders
– Directives
– Regulations
– Organization Policy and Standards
20
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Supplementing Baselines
10 Select security controls or control enhancement beyond
those identified in baselines or overlays necessary to
sufficiently mitigate risks
– Risk Assessment in the security control selection process provides essential
information in determining the necessity and sufficiency of the security
controls and control enhancements
– NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 Appendix F contains Control Catalog
– Situations Requiring Potential Baseline Supplementation
• Advanced Persistent Threat
• Cross-Domain Services
• Mobility
• Classified Information
21
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Identify Additional Needs
10 Recommended methods to identifying additional
needed security controls
– Requirements definition: organizations obtain specific and credible threat
information about adversary activities, capabilities, and potential attack
– Gap Analysis: organizational assessment of current defensive capability or
level of cyber preparedness to determine the types of threats they can
reasonably expect to encounter
• Reevaluate the priority codes from the security control
baselines to determine if changes to those priorities are
appropriate
22
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Enhancing Information Security
10 When Organizations cannot apply sufficient security
controls alternative strategies are needed:
• Strategies must consider the mission/business risks
– Limiting information the IS can process, store, or transmit
– Limiting the manner mission/business functions are automated
– Prohibiting external access, removing selected systems from networks
– Prohibiting information types from public access system
23
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Common Controls
11 Common Controls
– Protect multiple organizational information systems
– Implemented with regard to the highest impact level among systems
• If not, system owners need to take additional actions
– Designation of Common Control Providers (CCP) is the responsibility of the
DoD CIO or Navy CIO
• Navy process to designate CCPs is still in development
• Some DoD Common Controls have been identified and entered into eMASS
24
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Non-Common Controls
11 System-Specific Controls
– Primary responsibility of IS owner
• Hybrid Controls
– One part of the control is common and another control is system-specific
• Controls provided by External Service Providers
– Entities within the organization but outside the authorization boundary
– Entities outside the organization (other Federal or Commercial)
– Controls provided by External Service Providers must have documented
agreements (i.e. MOA/MOU, SLA, eMASS Inheritance, etc)
25
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Inherited Controls
11 All common controls are inherited but not all inherited
controls are common controls
– Common controls are inherited but differ from standard inherited controls
• Common Controls are always inherited from a Common Control Provider
– Common controls can be applied in layers, example:
• A Navy ship could leverage DoD provided common controls, DoN provided
common controls, and common controls inherent to the afloat environment
through ships’ design
– Hybrid Controls are shared with a Common Control Provider
– Inherited Controls are inherited from an External Service Provider such as:
• Enclave
• IA Suite
• Data Center
• Hosting facility
• Other Information System
26
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Document Tailored Controls
12 ISSM will document final control set in eMASS
– Tailored control set and rationale for selection decisions must be documented in
eMASS
– eMASS generated SP and POA&M will include added/removed controls with
rationale
• Note: some DoD instructions indicate the POA&M is “initiated” at this step because of
the identification of not-applicable controls, however, the POA&M is not actually
initiated until after control selection is complete and implementation begins
– NIST 800-53 Rev 4 “Finally, the security control tailoring process is not static –
that is, organizations revisit the tailoring step as often as needed based on
ongoing organizational assessments of risk”.
27
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Develop ISCM Strategy
13 Develop ISCM Strategy
– Reference NIST SP 800-137
• Template is available on DoD RMF KS and ODAA C&A Portal
– DoD is identifying specific controls that must be continuously monitored
• Red/White/Yellow control list identifies monitoring periodicity requirements
• Includes requirements such as: patching and scanning strategy, auditing, and review
of Logs
– Impact to Annual Security Review Requirements
• Annual security review is only required for controls NOT identified in the ISCM
Note: DoD has not finalized the end-to-end technical solution or policy for real time continuous
monitoring. Be prepared to update ISCMs as DoD releases additional guidance.
Develop
Document System Level Develop Security
Control Tailoring Assessment Plan
Continuous Monitoring
(ISCM) Strategy
28
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Develop SAP
14 NQV develops Security Assessment Plan
– SCA responsibility carried out by the NQV
– Use of a NQV is required to complete this action
– Security Control Assessment events should be coordinated with other
required test events such as Operational Test & Evaluation when possible
– Coordination of events must be documented in the SAP
– SAP must be approved SCA and provide to the AO for overall Step 2
approval
Programmatic
Review
Validator Develop
Develop
ISCM Strategy Security Assessment
Plan (SAP)
29
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
ISCM Template
SAP Template
Programmatic
Review
31
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Program Review
15 Program & Echelon II Concurrent Review
– Program/System stakeholders’ ensure planned implementation meets the
user community’s needs
• Verify control tailoring and implementation do not negatively impact the
operational requirements provided by the user community
• Verify the control requirements of the information owner have been implemented
Programmatic
Review
32
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
ECH II Review Decision
17 Echelon II Review Decision
– Conduct review in accordance with ECH II checklist and any additional
requirements imposed by ECH II
– Initiate correspondence log
– ECH II will not forward to AO or SCA if minimum requirements are not met
• ECH II will use mandatory Step 2 Triage Checklist
– Forwarding to AO and SCA signifies concurrence of the ECH II
• ECH II will sign Step 2 Concurrence Form
Programmatic
Review
Ready for
Ready for SCA
SCA and YES and AO Review
AO Review
33
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
SCA and AO Review
18 SCA and AO Concurrent Review
– Reviews are coordinated and concurrent event
– AO CSA will provide preliminary concurrence of the SP for the SCA to
proceed with SAP review
– The SCA/AO are eliminating duplication reviews to gain efficiency
• SCA Liaison reviews: SAP
• AO CSA reviews: SP, ISCM
SCA Review
AO Review
NO NO
(Assess Determination)
34
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
SCA Approves SAP
19 SCA Approves Security Assessment Plan (SAP)
– The SCA will review SP to determine if it is adequate to provide the
information to review and approve SAP
– SCA concurrence and processing SAP for signature can occur before AO
concurrence of the SP and ISCM strategy
SCA Review
AO Review
NO
(Assess Only
Determination) NO
35
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
RMF Step 2 Checkpoint
20 ECH II Schedules and Executes Checkpoint
– Scheduling is mandatory to “reserve” SCA Liaison/AO CSA time, however, if
both agree the requirement to meet can be waived
– Conclusion of the checkpoint
• ECH II provides Step 2 Concurrence Form endorsed by the User Rep, PM/ISO,
ECH II, SCA, and, if necessary, additional signatures to the AO
EII
Checkpoint
SCA/AO Reviews YES YES AO Approval
PM, SCA,
AO
NO
NO
36
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
AO Step 2 Approval
21 AO signs Step 2 Concurrence Form approving:
– SP
– ISCM Strategy
– SCA Approved SAP
• Required before the program can move to Step 3
AO
Approves
Implement Security
EII Checkpoint YES SAP, SP, YES Controls
and ISCM
Strategy
NO
NO
37
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
ECH II Triage Template
39
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Questions
UNCLASSIFIED 40
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
RMF References
UNCLASSIFIED 41
U.S. FLEET CYBER COMMAND / U.S. TENTH FLEET
Additional RMF Training Opportunities