NIST SP 800-128 日本語訳

NIST Special Publication 800-128

Arnold Johnson Kelley Dempsey Ron Ross Sarbari Gupta Dennis Bailey

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-128

NIST Special Publication 800-128

Arnold Johnson Kelley Dempsey Ron Ross

Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory

Sarbari Gupta Dennis Bailey

Electrosoft Services, Inc. Reston, VA

Reston, VA

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-128

August 2011

INCLUDES UPDATES AS OF 10-10-2019; SEE PAGE IV

U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology

Authority

This publication has been developed by NIST to further its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., Public Law (P.L.) 113-283. NIST is responsible for developing information security standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements for federal information systems, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems without the express approval of appropriate federal officials exercising policy authority over such systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular.

Nothing in this publication should be taken to contradict the 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. This publication may be used by nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright in the United States. Attribution would, however, be appreciated by NIST.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-128 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 800-128, 99 pages (August 2011) CODEN: NSPUE2

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-128

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

原本PDFの抜粋画像

There may be references in this publication to other publications currently under development by NIST in accordance with its assigned statutory responsibilities. The information in this publication, including concepts and methodologies, may be used by federal agencies even before the completion of such companion publications. Thus, until each publication is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures, where they exist, remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new publications by NIST.

Organizations are encouraged to review all draft publications during public comment periods and provide feedback to NIST. Many NIST cybersecurity publications, other than the ones noted above, are available at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications.

Comments on this publication may be submitted to: National Institute of Standards and Technology Attn: Computer Security Division, Information Technology Laboratory 100 Bureau Drive (Mail Stop 8930) Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 Electronic mail: sec-cert@nist.gov

All comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

PAGE i

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

Guide for Security-Focused Configuration Management of Information Systems provides guidelines for organizations responsible for managing and administering the security of federal information systems and associated environments of operation. Configuration management concepts and principles described in this publication provide supporting information for NIST SP 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. NIST SP 800-128 assumes that information security is an integral part of an organization’s overall configuration management. The focus of this document is on implementation of the information system security aspects of configuration management, and as such the term security-focused configuration management (SecCM) is used to emphasize the concentration on information security. In addition to the fundamental concepts associated with SecCM, the process of applying SecCM practices to information systems is described. The goal of SecCM activities is to manage and monitor the configurations of information systems to achieve adequate security and minimize organizational risk while supporting the desired business functionality and services.

Configuration management; information systems; security program; risk management framework; security-focused continuous monitoring; SecCM; control; monitoring; security content automation protocol (SCAP).

The authors, Arnold Johnson, Kelley Dempsey, and Ron Ross of NIST, and Sarbari Gupta and Dennis Bailey of Electrosoft, wish to thank their colleagues Murugiah Souppaya, Karen Scarfone, John Banghart, David Waltermire, and Blair Heiserman of NIST who reviewed drafts of the document and provided insightful recommendations. Nedim Goren and Jody Jacobs completed the errata update. A special note of thanks goes to Peggy Himes and Elizabeth Lennon for their superb technical editing and administrative support. We would also like to thank all those who responded to our call for public comments for lending their time and effort to make this a better document.

PAGE ii

Errata

This table contains changes that have been incorporated into Special Publication 800-128. Errata updates can include corrections, clarifications, or other minor changes in the publication that are either editorial or substantive in nature.

PAGE iv

PAGE v

PAGE vi

PAGE vii

PAGE viii

PAGE ix

PAGE x

PAGE xi

THE NEED FOR CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT TO PROTECT INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS

A system is composed of many components¹ that can be interconnected in a multitude of arrangements to meet a variety of business, mission, and information security needs. How system components are networked, configured, and managed is critical in providing adequate information security and supporting an organization’s risk management process.

A system is typically in a constant state of change in response to new, enhanced, corrected, or updated hardware and software capabilities, patches for correcting software flaws and other errors to existing components, new security threats, changing business functions, etc. Implementing system changes almost always results in some adjustment to the system configuration. To ensure that the required adjustments to the system configuration do not adversely affect the security of the system or the organization from operation of the system, a well-defined configuration management process that integrates information security is needed.

Organizations apply configuration management (CM) for establishing baselines and for tracking, controlling, and managing many aspects of business development and operation (e.g., products, services, manufacturing, business processes, and information technology). Organizations with a robust and effective CM process need to consider information security implications with respect to the development and operation of systems including hardware, software, applications, and documentation. Effective CM of systems requires the integration of the management of secure configurations into the organizational CM process or processes. For this reason, this document assumes that information security is an integral part of an organization’s overall CM process; however, the focus of this document is on implementation of the information security aspects of CM, and as such the term security-focused configuration management (SecCM) is used to emphasize the concentration on information security. Though both IT business application functions and security-focused practices are expected to be integrated as a single process, SecCM in this context is defined as the management and control of configurations for systems to enable security and facilitate the management of information security risk.

Federal agencies are responsible for “including policies and procedures that ensure compliance with minimally acceptable system configuration requirements, as determined by the agency” within their information security program.² Managing system configurations is also a minimum security requirement identified in [FIPS 200],³ and NIST [SP 800-53]⁴ defines controls that support this requirement.

In addition to general guidelines for ensuring that security considerations are integrated into the CM process, this publication provides guidelines for implementation of the Configuration Management family of controls defined in NIST [SP 800-53] (CM-1 through CM-9). This publication also includes guidelines for NIST [SP 800-53] controls related to managing the configuration of the system architecture and associated components for secure processing, storing, and transmitting of information. Configuration management is an important process for establishing and maintaining secure system configurations, and provides important support for managing security risks in systems.

The guidelines in this publication are applicable to all federal information systems other than those systems designated as national security systems as defined in [44 USC 3542]. The guidelines have been broadly developed from a technical perspective to complement similar guidelines for national security systems and may be used for such systems with the approval of appropriate federal officials exercising policy authority over such systems. State, local, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations are encouraged to consider using these guidelines, as appropriate.

This publication is intended to provide guidelines for organizations responsible for managing and administrating the security of federal information systems and associated environments of operation. For organizations responsible for the security of information processed, stored, and transmitted by external or service-oriented environments (e.g., cloud service providers), the configuration management concepts and principles presented here can aid organizations in establishing assurance requirements for suppliers providing external information technology services.

This publication is intended to serve a diverse audience of system and information security professionals including:

Commercial companies producing information technology products and systems, creating information security-related technologies, and providing information security services can also benefit from the information in this publication.

Configuration management concepts and principles described in this publication provide supporting information for NIST [SP 800-53], Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, as amended. This publication also provides important supporting information for the Implement Step, Assess Step , and the Monitor Step of the Risk Management Framework (RMF) that is discussed in NIST [SP 800-37], Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy, as amended. More specific guidelines on the implementation of the Monitor step of the RMF is provided in NIST [SP 800-137], Information Security Continuous Monitoring for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. The purpose of the Monitor step in the Risk Management Framework is to continuously monitor the effectiveness of all controls selected, implemented, and authorized for protecting organizational information and systems, which includes the Configuration Management controls identified in NIST [SP 800-53]. The monitoring phase identified in the security-focused configuration management (SecCM) process defined later in this document supports the RMF Monitoring phase by providing specific activities associated with the monitoring of the system structural architecture and the configuration settings of the software and hardware that operate in that system architecture.

Many of the SecCM concepts and principles described in this publication draw upon the underlying principles established for managing information security risk in NIST [SP 800-39], Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View.

This publication often refers to information from NIST [SP 800-70], National Checklist Program for IT Products--Guidelines for Checklist Users and Developers, as amended; and NIST [SP 800-126], The Technical Specification for the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP), Version 1.3, as a potential means of automated support in conducting many configuration management activities.

Additionally, this publication refers to numerous NIST Special Publications that provide guidelines on use and configuration of specific technologies for securing systems. Many of these publications are identified in Appendix F, Best Practices for Establishing Secure Configurations.

The remainder of this special publication is organized as follows:

BASIC CONCEPTS OF SECURITY CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

This chapter presents the fundamentals of security-focused configuration management (SecCM) including: (i) an overview of basic configuration management terms and concepts, and the role of SecCM; (ii) the primary phases of SecCM; (iii) SecCM concepts; and (iv) the roles and responsibilities relevant to SecCM.

This section provides an overview of SecCM including its importance in managing organizational risks from systems, the basic terms associated with configuration management, and characterization of SecCM within the configuration management discipline.

Configuration management has been applied to a broad range of products and systems in subject areas such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Some basic terms associated with the configuration management discipline are briefly explained below.

Configuration Management (CM) comprises a collection of activities focused on establishing and maintaining the integrity of products and systems, through control of the processes for initializing, changing, and monitoring the configurations of those products and systems.

A Configuration Item (CI) is an identifiable part of a system (e.g., hardware, software, firmware, documentation, or a combination thereof) that is a discrete target of configuration control processes.

A Baseline Configuration is a set of specifications for a system, or CI within a system, that has been formally reviewed and agreed on at a given point in time, and which can be changed only through change control procedures. The baseline configuration is used as a basis for future builds, releases, and/or changes.

A Configuration Management Plan (CM Plan) is a comprehensive description of the roles, responsibilities, policies, and procedures that apply when managing the configuration of products and systems. The basic parts of a CM Plan include:

This guideline is associated with the application of security-focused configuration management practices as they apply to systems. The configuration of a system is a representation of the system’s components, how each component is configured, and how the components are connected or arranged to implement the system. The possible conditions in which a system or system component can be arranged affect the security posture of the system. The activities involved in managing the configuration of a system include development of a configuration management plan, establishment of a configuration control board, development of a methodology for configuration item identification, establishment of the baseline configuration, development of a configuration change control process, and development of a process for configuration monitoring and reporting.

As the ubiquity of information technology increases the dependence on systems, organizations are faced with an increase in the number and severity of threats that can have adverse impacts on operations, assets, and individuals. Given the potential for harm that can arise from environmental disruptions, human errors, and purposeful attacks by hostile entities and other threats, an organization must place greater emphasis on the management of risk associated with systems as it attempts to carry out its mission and business processes. The cornerstone of any effort to manage organizational risk related to systems is an effective security⁵ program.

It is incumbent upon the organization to implement its directives in a manner that provides adequate security⁶ for protecting information and systems. As threats continue to evolve in an environment where organizations have finite resources with which to protect themselves, security has become a risk-based activity where the operational and economic costs of ensuring that a particular threat does not exploit a vulnerability are balanced against the needs of the organization’s mission and business processes. In a world of limited resources, the practice of risk management is fundamental to an information security program.

In risk-based mission protection strategies, organizations explicitly identify and respond to risks associated with the use of systems in carrying out missions and business processes. Careful consideration is given to how a range of diverse threats can expose existing vulnerabilities and cause harm to the organization. In the management of risk, organizations often have very little control over threats. Organizations cannot control earthquakes, floods, disgruntled employees, hackers, and other threats; however, organizations can control vulnerabilities and reduce threats via implementation of a robust SecCM process that is part of the overall risk management process. Vulnerabilities represent the various types of weaknesses that can be exploited by a threat. While an analysis of system vulnerabilities reveals a variety of potential causes, many vulnerabilities can be traced to software flaws and misconfigurations of system components.

The management of configurations has traditionally been viewed as an IT management best practice.⁷ Using SecCM to gain greater control over and ensure the integrity of IT resources facilitates asset management, improves incident response, help desk, disaster recovery and problem solving, aids in software development and release management, enables greater automation of processes, and supports compliance with policies and preparation for audits.

The configuration of a system and its components has a direct impact on the security posture of the system. How the configurations are established and maintained requires a disciplined approach for providing adequate security. Changes to the configuration of a system are often needed to stay up to date with changing business functions and services, and information security needs. However, changes can adversely impact the previously established security posture; therefore, effective configuration management is vital to the establishment and maintenance of security of information and systems. The security-focused configuration management process is critical to maintaining a secure state under normal operations, contingency recovery operations, and reconstitution to normal operations.

Security-Focused Configuration Management (SecCM) is the management and control of secure configurations for a system to enable security and facilitate the management of risk. SecCM builds on the general concepts, processes, and activities of configuration management by attention on the implementation and maintenance of the established security requirements of the organization and systems.

Information security configuration management requirements are integrated into (or complement) existing organizational configuration management processes (e.g., business functions, applications, products) and information systems. SecCM activities include:

In cases where an organization has no existing CM process in place, security-focused configuration management practices as defined in this document are developed and implemented from process inception.

Initial implementation of a SecCM program may require considerable effort. If there is no existing SecCM process within the organization, there is an initial investment in developing and implementing a program that is comprehensive enough to span multiple technologies, the organizational structure, and disparate processes, and that can deliver consistent results while supporting the organization’s missions and business processes. In addition, tools are procured and implemented, system components inventoried and recorded, and processes modified to account for new ways of managing technology in the context of SecCM.

Once in place, SecCM requires an ongoing investment in time and resources. Product patches, fixes, and updates require time for security impact analysis even as threats and vulnerabilities continue to exist. As changes to systems are made, baseline configurations are updated, specific configuration settings confirmed, and configuration items tracked, verified, and reported. SecCM is a continuous activity that, once incorporated into IT management processes, touches all stages of the system development life cycle (SDLC). Organizations that implement SecCM throughout the SDLC and make its tenets a part of the IT management culture are most likely to reap benefits in terms of improvement of security and functionality, and more effective management of organizational risk.

Security-focused configuration management of systems involves a set of activities that can be organized into four major phases: Planning; Identifying and Implementing Configurations; Controlling Configuration Changes; and Monitoring. It is through these phases that SecCM not only supports security for a system and its components, but also supports the management of organizational risk. Chapter 3 presents the detailed processes and considerations in implementing the necessary activities in each of these phases.

The four phases of SecCM are illustrated in Figure 2-1 and described below.

Figure 2-1 – Security-focused Configuration Management Phases

As with many security activities, planning can greatly impact the success or failure of the effort. As a part of planning, the scope or applicability of SecCM processes are identified.

Planning includes developing policy and procedures to incorporate SecCM into existing information technology and security programs, and then disseminating the policy throughout the organization. Policy addresses areas such as the implementation of SecCM plans, integration into existing security program plans, Configuration Control Boards (CCBs), configuration change control processes, tools and technology, the use of common secure configurations⁹ and baseline configurations, monitoring, and metrics for compliance with established SecCM policy and procedures. It is typically more cost-effective to develop and implement a SecCM plan, policies, procedures, and associated SecCM tools at the organizational or mission/business process risk management level.¹⁰

After the planning and preparation activities are completed, a secure baseline configuration for the system is developed, reviewed, approved, and implemented. The approved baseline configuration for a system and associated components represents the most secure state consistent with operational requirements and constraints. For a typical system, the secure baseline may address configuration settings, software loads, patch levels, how the information system is physically or logically arranged, how various security controls are implemented, and documentation. Where possible, automation is used to enable interoperability of tools and uniformity of baseline configurations across the system.

Given the continually evolving nature of a system and the mission it supports, the challenge for organizations is not only to establish an initial baseline configuration that represents a secure state (which is also cost-effective, functional, and supportive of mission and business processes), but also to maintain a secure configuration in the face of the significant waves of change that ripple through organizations.

In this phase of SecCM, the emphasis is put on the management of change to maintain the secure, approved baseline of the system. Through the use of SecCM practices, organizations ensure that changes are formally identified, proposed, reviewed, analyzed for security impact, tested, and approved prior to implementation. As part of the configuration change control effort, organizations can employ a variety of access restrictions for change including access controls, process automation, abstract layers, change windows, and verification and audit activities to limit unauthorized and/or undocumented changes to the system.

Monitoring activities are used as the mechanism within SecCM to validate that the system is adhering to organizational policies, procedures, and the approved secure baseline configuration. Planning and implementing secure configurations and then controlling configuration change is usually not sufficient to ensure that a system which was once secure will remain secure. Monitoring identifies undiscovered/undocumented system components, misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and unauthorized changes, all of which, if not addressed, can expose organizations to increased risk. Using automated tools helps organizations to efficiently identify when the system is not consistent with the approved baseline configuration and when remediation actions are necessary. In addition, the use of automated tools often facilitates situational awareness and the documentation of deviations from the baseline configuration.

Processes and requirements within all four SecCM phases do not remain static thus all processes in all four phases are reviewed and revised as needed to support organizational risk management. SecCM monitoring activities may loop back to any of the previous phases (as noted in Figure 2-1) and precipitate changes.

SecCM monitoring is done through assessment and reporting activities. Reports address the secure state of individual system configurations and are used as input to Risk Management

Framework information security continuous monitoring requirements.¹¹ SecCM monitoring can also support gathering of information for metrics that can be used to provide quantitative evidence that the SecCM program is meeting its stated goals, and can be used to improve SecCM processes in general.

This section describes the fundamental concepts relevant to the practice of SecCM within an organization. Recognizing that organizations have widely varying missions and organizational structures, there may be differences in the way that SecCM is implemented and managed.

The development of documented SecCM policy communicates senior management’s expectations for SecCM to members of the organization through specific, measurable, and confirmable objectives. It is a top-down approach which defines what is required and what is not permitted with respect to using SecCM to manage and control information resources.

While policy defines the objectives for what must be done, procedures describe how the policy objectives are met through specific actions and results. SecCM procedures are developed to describe the methodology and tasks for each activity that supports implementation of the SecCM policy.

Documenting configuration management policy and procedures is performed during the Planning phase and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-1 Configuration Management Policy and Procedures.

The Configuration Management Plan serves to describe how SecCM policy is to be implemented. The SecCM Plan may be written to apply to an entire organization, or it may be localized and tailored to a system or a group of systems supporting a mission/business process within the organization. The SecCM Plan may take the form of an all-inclusive, stand-alone document that describes all aspects of SecCM or may be contained within more broadly defined CM procedures. A SecCM Plan may also take the form of a set of documents and appendices that taken together describe all aspects of SecCM. Finally, the SecCM Plan may take the form of a set of predefined data elements in a repository.

The SecCM Plan is produced during the Planning phase and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] controls CM-1 Configuration Management Policy and Procedures and CM-9 Configuration Management Plan.

The Configuration Control Board (CCB) is a group typically consisting of two or more individuals that have the collective responsibility and authority to review and approve changes to an information system. The group, which represents various perspectives from within the organization, is chosen to evaluate and approve changes to the system. The CCB is a check and balance on configuration change activity, assuring that changes are held to organizationally defined criteria (e.g., scope, cost, impact on security) before being implemented.

The CCB may be less formal for systems which have limited size, scope, and criticality in the context of the mission of the organization. The organization determines the size and formality of the CCB that is appropriate for a given system (or systems) within the organization.

The CCB establishment is part of the Planning phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-3 Configuration Change Control.

The component inventory is a descriptive record of the components within an organization down to the system level. A consolidated representation of the components within all of the systems within an organization allows the organization to have greater visibility into and control over its systems, facilitating the implementation, operation, and management of a security program. The organization determines the level of granularity required for tracking the components for SecCM. For example, one organization may track a workstation (with all peripherals) as a single component while another may document each peripheral as a separate component in the inventory.

Each component is associated with only one system and the authority over and responsibility for each component is with only one system owner (i.e., every item in the component inventory falls within the authorization boundary of a single system).

Creating an inventory of system components is part of the Planning phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of the NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-8 System Component Inventory.

In the context of SecCM of systems, a configuration item (CI) is an aggregation of system components that is designated for configuration management and treated as a single entity throughout the SecCM process. The CI is identified, labeled, and tracked during its life cycle – the CI is the target of many of the activities within SecCM, such as configuration change control and monitoring activities. A CI may be a specific system component (e.g., server, workstation, router, application), a group of system components (e.g., group of servers with like operating systems, group of network components such as routers and switches, an application or suite of applications), a non-component object (e.g., firmware, documentation), or a system as a whole. CIs give organizations a way to decompose the system into manageable parts whose configurations can be actively managed.

The purpose of breaking up a system into CIs is to allow more granularity and control in managing the secure configuration of the system. The level of granularity varies among organizations and systems and is balanced against the associated management overhead for each CI. In one organization, it may be appropriate to create a single CI to track all of the laptops within a system, while in another organization, each laptop may represent an individual CI.

Identification of the configuration items that compose a system is part of the Planning phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-3 Configuration Change Control.

Configurations represent the possible states in which a system and its components can be arranged. Secure configurations are designed to reduce the organizational security risk from operation of a system, and may involve using trusted or approved software loads, maintaining up-to-date patch levels, applying secure configuration settings of the IT products used, and implementation of endpoint protection platforms. Secure configurations for a system are most often achieved through the application of secure configuration settings to the IT products (e.g., operating systems, databases, etc.) used to build the system. For example, a secure configuration for selected IT products used within the system or organization could incorporate the principle of least functionality. Least functionality helps to minimize the potential for introduction of security vulnerabilities and includes, but is not limited to, disabling or uninstalling unused/unnecessary operating system (OS) functionality, protocols, ports, and services, and limiting the software that can be installed and the functionality of that software.

Implementing secure configurations is part of the Identifying and Implementing Configurations phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] controls CM-6 Configuration Settings and CM-7 Least Functionality.

A baseline configuration is a set of specifications for a system, or Configuration Item (CI) within a system, that has been formally reviewed and agreed on at a given point in time, and which can be changed only through change control procedures. The baseline configuration is used as a basis for future builds, releases, and/or changes.

The baseline configuration of a system may evolve over time depending on the stage of the system development life cycle (SDLC). Early in the SDLC when a system is being initiated and acquired, the baseline may be a set of functional requirements. As the system is developed and implemented, the baseline may expand to include additional configuration items such as the technical design, the software load, the architecture, and configurations of the system and its individual components. A baseline configuration may also represent different information computing environments such as development, test, and production.

When a new baseline configuration is established, the implication is that all of the changes from the last baseline have been approved. Older versions of approved baseline configurations are maintained and made available for review or rollback as needed.

Developing and documenting the baseline configuration for a system is part of the Identifying and Implementing Configurations phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-2 Baseline Configuration.

Configuration change control is the documented process for managing and controlling changes to the configuration of a system or its constituent CIs. Configuration change control for the system involves the systematic proposal, justification, implementation, test/evaluation, review, and disposition of changes to the system, including upgrades and modifications. Configuration change control is applied to include changes to components of the system, changes to the configuration settings for information technology products, emergency/unscheduled changes, and changes to remediate flaws. Changes are controlled from the time the change is proposed to the implementation and testing of the change. Each step in the change process is clearly articulated along with the responsibilities and authorities of the roles involved.

Configuration change control falls under the Controlling Configuration Changes phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-3 Configuration Change Control and CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change.

Security impact analysis is the analysis conducted by qualified staff within an organization to determine the extent to which changes to the system affect the security posture of the system. Because systems are typically in a constant state of change, it is important to understand the impact of changes on the functionality of existing security controls and in the context of organizational risk tolerance. Security impact analysis is incorporated into the documented configuration change control process.

The analysis of the security impact of a change occurs when changes are analyzed and evaluated for adverse impact on security, preferably before they are approved and implemented, but also in the case of emergency/unscheduled changes. Once the changes are implemented and tested, a security impact analysis (and/or assessment) is performed to ensure that the changes have been implemented as approved, and to determine if there are any unanticipated effects of the change on existing security controls.

Security impact analysis is performed as a part of the Controlling Configuration Changes phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of NIST [SP 800-53] control CM-4 Security Impact Analysis.

Configuration monitoring involves activities to determine whether systems are configured in accordance with the organization’s agreed-upon baseline configurations, and whether the components identified within the system are consistent with the component inventory being maintained by the organization.

Configuration monitoring helps to ensure that SecCM controls are operating as intended and are providing effective security while supporting adherence to SecCM policies and procedures. Configuration monitoring may also help to motivate staff members to perform SecCM activities in accordance with policies and procedures. Additionally, configuration monitoring supports organizations in their efforts to conform to the Risk Management Framework.¹² Information gathered during configuration monitoring can be used to support overall continuous monitoring activities¹³ including ongoing assessments of specific controls and updates to documentation such as System Security Plans, Security Assessment Reports, and Security Status Reports. Automation capabilities, such as those defined by SCAP, can be used to automate assessment activities.

Configuration monitoring is part of the Monitoring phase of SecCM and supports the implementation of all NIST [SP 800-53] controls in the CM Family.

The set of roles (at the organization, mission/business process, and system level) that are relevant to the SecCM program are defined along with the responsibilities. The responsibilities are in the context of SecCM only and are not inclusive of other non-SecCM responsibilities the roles may also have. Typically, SecCM roles and responsibilities include:

Chief Information Officer (CIO) The CIO designates and/or provides a SecCM Program Manager for the organization and approves the organizational SecCM plan and policies.

Senior Agency Information Security Officer (SAISO) The SAISO may act as the SecCM Program Manager for the organization. The SAISO may also provide staff with security expertise to serve on the CCB and/or to conduct security impact analyses. Organizations may also refer to this position as the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).

Authorizing Official (AO) The AO manages or participates in the CCB for systems s/he authorizes and may provide technical staff to conduct and/or review security impact analyses. The AO coordinates with the Risk Executive (Function) on SecCM issues and makes the final determination whether or not a given change or set of changes continues to be an acceptable security risk.

System Owner The system owner identifies, defines, and ensures implementation of the aspects of SecCM for the information system that have not been defined by the organization of which the system is a part. The system owner also ensures implementation of organizational-level SecCM requirements for the system.

SecCM Program Manager The SecCM Program Manager develops SecCM policies and procedures, provides direction, and oversees the implementation of the SecCM program for the organization and/or system level SecCM program. The SecCM Program Manager may be the SAISO (or someone designated by the SAISO or the CIO) at the organizational level or the system owner (or someone designated by the system owner) at the system level.

System Security Officer (SSO) The SSO assists the system owner with implementation of SecCM for the system, conducts configuration monitoring activities (reporting and analysis), and may serve on the CCB.

System Administrator (SA) The SA implements agreed-upon secure baseline configurations, incorporates secure configuration settings for IT products, and assists with security impact analyses and configuration monitoring activities as needed. In addition, the SA may be included in the process for determining the appropriate baseline configuration for each CI and may serve on the CCB. SAs are also responsible for complying with SecCM policies and implementing/following SecCM procedures.

System/Software Developer The developer ensures that secure configuration settings are built into applications in accordance with security requirements and assists with security impact analyses and configuration monitoring activities as needed. In addition, the developer may be included in the process for determining the appropriate baseline configuration for relevant CIs and may serve on the CCB. Developers are also responsible for complying with SecCM policies and implementing/following SecCM procedures.

System User (SU) The SU initiates change requests, assists with functional testing, and complies with SecCM requirements.

IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION OF SECURITY-FOCUSED CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

This chapter describes the process of applying security-focused configuration management to systems within an organization. The goal of SecCM activities is to manage and monitor the configurations of systems to achieve adequate security and minimize organizational risk while supporting the desired business functionality and services.

The following sections discuss activities that occur within each of the four phases of SecCM. Some of the activities may be more efficiently performed at the organizational or mission/business process level (i.e., applying to more than one information system), while other activities may be more efficiently performed at the system level (i.e., applying to a single system). Each organization determines what activities are conducted at the organizational or mission/business process level and what activities are conducted at the system level in accordance with organizational management requirements. Appendix G provides flow charts of the SecCM activities described here. The flow charts are intended to serve as tools for organizations to draw upon for developing their own SecCM processes.

This section describes various SecCM planning activities at the organizational and system level.

The following subsections describe the planning phase activities that are normally conducted at the organizational level (or the mission/business process level). The subsections are listed in the order in which the planning activities typically occur. As always, organizations have flexibility in determining which activities are performed at what level and in what order. Planning at the organizational level includes SecCM program documented policies and procedures that provide direction and support for managing configurations of individual systems within the organization.

Establish Organization-wide SecCM Program The practice of SecCM for ensuring adequate security and facilitating the management of risk is most effectively realized if it is implemented in a consistent manner across the organization. Some SecCM activities are more effective when performed at the organizational level, with responsibility assigned to the organization-wide SecCM program.

For organizations with varied and complex enterprise architecture, implementing SecCM in a consistent and uniform manner across the organization requires organization-wide coordination of resources. A senior management-level program manager designated to lead and oversee the organization-wide SecCM program can provide this type of coordination. For many large organizations, dedicated staff may be needed. For smaller organizations, or those with funding or resource constraints, the organization-wide SecCM program may be implemented by senior management-level staff that meet as a group to determine the SecCM-related activities for the organization.

The SecCM program manager provides knowledge and direction in the form of policies and procedures, communications, training, defined roles and responsibilities, support, oversight of program activities, and coordination with stakeholders. An organization-wide SecCM program also demonstrates management commitment for the effort. This commitment from the top of the organization is communicated throughout the organization down to the individual system owners.

The SecCM program manager facilitates communications regarding SecCM policies, procedures, issues, etc., within the organization. Consideration is given to implementation of a security information management console or “dashboard” to communicate basic project and operational information to stakeholders in language they understand. The SecCM program manager also considers other vehicles for communication such as Web site updates, emails, and newsletters to share milestones, measures of value, and other SecCM-related news with stakeholders.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO

Expected Input: Organizational risk tolerance; organizational security requirements; applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc. from higher authorities

Expected Output: Functional organization-wide SecCM program

Develop Organizational SecCM Policy The organization is typically responsible for defining documented policies for the SecCM program. The SecCM program manager develops, disseminates, and periodically reviews and updates the SecCM policies for the organization. The policies are included as a part of the overall organization-wide security policy. The SecCM policy normally includes the following:

SecCM policy may also address the following topics:

The SecCM policy emphasizes management commitment, clarifies the required level of coordination among organizational entities, and defines the configuration monitoring approach.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO

Expected Input: Organizational risk tolerance; organizational security requirements; applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc. from higher authorities

Expected Output: Documented SecCM policies

Develop Organizational SecCM Procedures The organization typically establishes and maintains common procedures for security-focused configuration management activities; however, some SecCM procedures may require development at the system level. Organizations may also provide hybrid procedures, i.e., the organization establishes procedures that contain parameters to be defined at the system level. In any case, the procedures are documented and disseminated to relevant staff, and in accordance with organizational policy. SecCM procedures address the following, as applicable:

Templates - Establishes templates related to SecCM that integrate the organization-wide SecCM policy and procedures and allow individual system owners to fill in information specific to their system. Templates may be developed for a SecCM Plan, system-specific procedure(s), change requests, security impact analyses, reporting on SecCM, etc. Templates may also be developed to apply specifically to low, moderate, or high-impact systems.¹⁴ Sample templates are provided in Appendices D and E.

Component Inventory – Describes how components are to be managed within the inventory (e.g., how new components are added to the inventory, what information about each component is tracked, and how updates are made including removal of retired components). If automated tools are to be used, factors such as how often they will run, who will administer them, who will have access, and how they will be audited are described.

Baseline Configuration – Identifies the steps for creation of a baseline configuration, content of the baseline configuration, approval of the initial baseline configuration, maintenance of the baseline configuration (i.e., when it should be updated and by whom), and control of the baseline configuration. If applicable, requirements from higher regulatory bodies are considered and integrated when defining baseline configurations (e.g., requirements from OMB memos, laws such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), etc.).

Common Secure Configurations – Identifies commonly recognized and standardized secure configurations to be applied to configuration items. The common secure configurations specified in the procedure are derived from established federal, organizational, or industry specifications (the National Checklist Program contains references to common secure configurations such as the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB), Defense Information System Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks, etc.). Where possible, common secure configurations use SCAP-expressed content. Deviations from the common secure configurations are also addressed (e.g., identification of acceptable methods for assessing, approving, documenting, and justifying deviations to common secure configurations, along with identification of controls implemented to

mitigate risk from the deviations), in the event that the configuration for a given system must diverge from the defined configuration due to mission requirements or other constraints.

Patch Management – Defines how an organization’s patch management process is integrated into SecCM, how patches are prioritized and approved through the configuration change control process, and how patches are tested for their impact on existing secure configurations. Also defines how patches are integrated into updates to approved baseline configurations and how patch implementation is controlled (access controls, etc.).

Configuration Change Control – Identifies the steps to move a configuration change from its initial request to eventual release into the operational environment. The procedure includes, but is not limited to:

Help Desk Procedures – Describes how change requests originating through the help desk are recorded, submitted, tracked, and integrated into the configuration change control process.

SDLC Procedures – Describes how SecCM is used to manage and control system configurations and changes within the organizationally defined SDLC process and throughout the life cycle of a system.

15Preapproved changes are still tested and documented prior to implementation.

Monitoring – Describes how monitoring activities and related reports are applied to assess the secure state of the system, and how to identify when the actual configuration becomes different in some way from the approved baseline configuration (i.e., unauthorized change) within a system through analysis of monitoring and reporting activities.

Media Library Procedures – Describes management of the media library and includes naming conventions for media, labeling procedures (name/version, date created, retention period, owner, date for destruction, impact or classification level), tracking media, access controls, protections for media integrity (e.g., checksums), inventory checks, capacity planning, and archiving of media.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager; System Owners. Note: SecCM Program Managers and System Owners both have responsibility in determining which procedures are needed at their respective levels and how they are documented (e.g., as several separate procedures, as a single procedure, as part of the SecCM plan)

Supporting Roles: SAISO or equivalent (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); SSO; SA; System User

Expected Input: Organizational policies organizational risk tolerance; organizational security requirements; applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc. from higher authorities

Expected Output: Documented SecCM procedures

SecCM monitoring verifies that the SecCM process is effective with respect to maintaining the security posture of the organization and adherence to baseline configurations and SecCM policy. The SecCM monitoring strategy is based on the risk tolerance of, and security requirements for, the organization. The SecCM monitoring strategy is consistent with, and provides input to, the organization’s overall continuous monitoring strategy. The organization typically develops the SecCM monitoring strategy; however, organizations have the flexibility to develop some or all of the SecCM monitoring strategy at the mission/business process or system level.

A schedule for SecCM monitoring and associated reporting is established as part of the strategy. Scheduled and ad hoc assessments are included within the strategy. The monitoring schedule may coincide with scheduled releases such that assessments are performed before and after deployments. Ad hoc assessments may also be conducted so that staff does not become lax in between scheduled assessments. Additionally, the schedule includes provisions for reviewing and revising the SecCM monitoring strategy to ensure that the strategy continues to meet organizational security requirements.

See Section 3.4 for more information on SecCM monitoring.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager

Supporting Roles: SAISO or equivalent (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); System Owner; SSO

Expected Input: SecCM policy and procedures, overall organizational continuous monitoring policy and procedures; organizational risk tolerance; organizational security requirements

Expected Output: Strategy and schedule for configuration monitoring and reporting

In the interest of resource management, the organization may wish to designate the types of changes that are preapproved (i.e., changes that are not sent to the CCB for approval)15 and changes that are typically not included under configuration control (i.e., changes that are completely exempt from SecCM). Vendor-provided security patches, updated antivirus signatures, and replacement of defective peripherals or internal hardware are examples of changes that may be preapproved. Database content updates, creating/removing/updating accounts, and creation or deletion of user files are examples of changes that are typically exempt from configuration change control.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); AO; SSO; SA; System/Software Developers

Expected Input: SecCM policies and procedures; types of changes that typically occur within the organization and/or system

Expected Output: Record of the types of changes that are exempt from configuration control; record of the types of changes that are configuration controlled

SecCM is a fundamental part of an organizational security program, but often requires a change in organizational culture. Staff is provided training to ensure their understanding of SecCM policies and procedures. Training also provides a venue for management to communicate the reasons why SecCM is important. SecCM training material is developed covering organizational policies, procedures, tools, artifacts, and monitoring requirements. The training may be mandatory or optional as appropriate and is targeted to relevant staff (e.g., system administrators, system/software developers, system security officers, system owners, etc.) as necessary to ensure that staff has the skills to manage the baseline configurations in accordance with organizational policy.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO; SSO

Expected Input: SecCM policies and procedures

Expected Output: Training materials and/or courses scheduled as necessary

Identify Approved IT Products Many organizations establish a list of approved hardware and software products (e.g., a software whitelist) for use across the organization.). System owners select and use products from the approved list without the need for explicit approval. Depending upon organizational policy, additional products required for a particular system may need to be approved by the CCB for that system; alternatively, a product used may need to be added to the organizationally controlled and approved IT products list. Some organizations may also provide a buying service or similar purchasing/contracting vehicle from which preapproved products may be purchased or are required to be purchased.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager and/or the Configuration Control Board; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); AO; SSO

Expected Input: SecCM policies and procedures; organizational security requirements; acquisition/buying service information

Expected Output: List of approved IT Products for the organization

Managing the myriad configurations found within system components has become an almost impossible task using manual methods like spreadsheets. When possible, organizations look for automated solutions which, in the long run, can lower costs, enhance efficiency, and improve the reliability of SecCM efforts.

In most cases, tools to support activities in SecCM phases two, three, and four are selected for use across the organization by SecCM program management, and system owners are responsible for applying the tools to the SecCM activities performed on each system. Similarly, tools and mechanisms for inventory reporting and management may be provided to system owners by the organization. In accordance with federal government and organizational policy, if automated tools are used, the tools are Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP)-validated to the extent that such tools are available. SCAP is described in more detail in Section 3.5.

If not provided by the organization, tools are identified and deployed to support SecCM at the system level. When possible, existing SecCM tools from within the organization are leveraged to support consistent organization-wide SecCM practices, centralized reporting, and cost efficiency. Leveraging existing tools may require them to be installed and configured to function on individual systems. Tool installation and configuration usually requires that accounts be set up, administrators identified, schedules determined, the appropriate baseline configurations set up, and possibly installation of a client on each component to be configuration-controlled. If the tool has already been deployed within the organization, instructions for installation, configuration, and deployment are available or easy to produce if needed.

There are a wide variety of configuration management tools available to support an organization’s SecCM program. At a minimum, the organization considers tools that can automatically assess configuration settings of system components. To the greatest extent possible, select automated tools that can scan different system components (e.g., Web server, database server, network devices, etc.) running different operating systems, identify the current configuration settings, and indicate where the current settings are noncompliant with policy. Automated configuration management tools import settings from one or more common secure configurations and then allow for tailoring the configurations to the organization’s security and mission/functional requirements.

Tools that implement and/or assess configuration settings are evaluated to determine whether they include requirements such as:

Organizations may consider implementation of an all-in-one solution for configuration management. For example, various configuration management functions are included in products for managing servers, workstations, desktops, and services provided by applications. The products may include functions such as:

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager and/or the Configuration Control Board; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO; SSO; SA

Expected Input: SecCM policies and procedures; organizational and system security requirements; acquisition/buying service information

Expected Output: Tools to be implemented in support of SecCM

Establish Configuration Test Environment and Program Some organizations may wish to establish and maintain a configuration test environment and program for testing IT products, tools, and proposed changes to them in a centrally managed environment isolated from the production environment. The test environment is used for various types of testing to include:

NIST [SP 800-115], Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment, provides guidelines on how to establish and conduct an effective information security functional testing program. Specific guidelines are provided for system configuration review and vulnerability scanning which may be directly applied to the configuration test program.

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO; SSO; SA

Expected Input: SecCM policies and procedures;

Expected Output: Isolated test environment and program in support of SecCM

The following subsections describe the planning phase activities that are normally completed at the system level. The subsections are listed in the order in which the planning activities typically occur. As always, organizations have flexibility in determining which activities are performed at the organizational level and which activities are performed at the system level, and in what order. The system-level planning phase results in a completed SecCM Plan, an established Configuration Control Board, an accurate system component inventory, and defined configuration items for the system.

The primary goal of the SecCM Plan is to document or provide references to system-specific SecCM-related information. The organization may define a master SecCM Plan and provide templates that require a subset of the SecCM Plan to be documented for each system, or the system owner may be required to define the system SecCM Plan in its entirety. Regardless of the format, a SecCM Plan is completed at the system level and typically covers the following topics:

The SecCM Plan may have various representations; it could be an actual document, a collection of data stored within a SecCM tool, or a variety of other representations. SecCM procedures may be covered separately or the SecCM plan may incorporate SecCM procedures. The SecCM Plan may also be instantiated at the system level from organizational templates. The level of detail for the SecCM plan is commensurate with the impact level of the subject system.

SDLC Phase: Begin in Initiation phase, fine tune in Development/Acquisition phase, finalize in Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: System Owner

Supporting Roles: SSO; SA; System/Software Developer; System User

Expected Input: Organizational SecCM policies, procedures, and templates

Expected Output: System-level SecCM plan, including system-level procedures

A system component is a discrete identifiable IT asset that represents a building block of a system. An accurate component inventory is essential to record the components that compose the system. The component inventory helps to improve the security of the system by providing a comprehensive view of the components that need to be managed and secured. All system components are tracked from acquisition to retirement as part of the organization’s SDLC process.

The system component inventory can be represented as:

where \(n\) is greater than or equal to one, and SC represents a system component within the organization.

Every organizational component is included within the authorization boundary of one, and only one, system and is documented and tracked in an inventory which reflects the association with the system under which it is managed (i.e., an component associated with a system is included in that system component inventory). A component may support systems that are not within the same authorization boundary (i.e., such as a server that supports several Web applications or virtual machines); however, the owners of the supported systems have neither authority over, nor responsibility for, the supporting component, and thus the component would not be included in the component inventories of the supported systems.

The component inventory is populated through a process of discovery. Discovery, which may be manual or automated, is the process of obtaining information on system components that compose the systems within the organization. The organization typically determines the types and granularity of the components (peripherals versus workstations, routers, etc.) that are to be identified within the inventory. In most organizations, it is impractical to manually collect this information for inclusion in the inventory or for analysis against the authorized inventory. The use of automated tools for discovery, analysis, and management of component inventories is generally a more effective and efficient means of maintaining component inventories. Still, it is important to note that even with automated inventory management tools, it may still be necessary to enter some component inventory data elements manually. Examples include, but are not limited to, organizational unique identifiers, system association (depending on network configuration, whether the inventory management tool installation is at the organizational level or system level, etc.), system/component owner, administrator, or user, configuration item association, or type of component. Tools that support inventory management are usually database-driven applications to track and manage system components within a given environment. Once an inventory is established, automated tools are often used to detect the removal or addition of components. Some inventory management tools allow for expanded monitoring of components through the use of built-in hooks in the OS, installation of agents on each component, or Application Programming Interfaces. With this functionality, the inventory management system can monitor changes in the component’s configuration and report the results to specified staff.

Inventory management tools are SCAP-validated, to the extent such tools are available. When purchasing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or customized inventory management application, organizations are well advised to include SCAP requirements in requests for proposals, purchase agreements, contracts, etc. Specifying components by a commonly recognized identifier such as the Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) can facilitate interchange of data among SCAP-compliant tools.¹⁷ Use of commonly recognized identifiers from the start of the acquisition process provides a common taxonomy for the component inventory to track components throughout the entire SDLC (i.e., from acquisition to retirement).

A system component inventory adds real value to SecCM when each item in the inventory is associated with information that can be leveraged for determination of approved configuration baselines, configuration change control/security impact analysis, and monitoring/reporting. Some data elements¹⁸ typically stored for each component in the system component inventory include:

Some additional data elements may also be recorded to facilitate SecCM, such as:

SDLC Phase: Begin in Development/Acquisition phase, finalize in Implementation/Assessment phase, ongoing updates during Operations and Maintenance phase

Primary Roles: System Owner

Supporting Roles: SSO; SA; SU

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system-level tools, organizational and/or system-level policies and procedures

Expected Output: Accurate system component inventory

When implementing configuration management, the system owner determines how to best decompose the system into one or more configuration items (CIs). CIs may be one or a group of system components, documents, network diagrams, scripts, custom code, and various other elements that compose the system and which require configuration management.

A system can be represented as a set of one or more CIs as follows:

System = {CI_1, CI_2, …CI_n} where n is greater than or equal to 1.

There is a one-to-many relationship between systems and CIs. Thus, each system is composed of one or more CIs and each CI is part of one, and only one, system. In cases where an organization establishes and maintains a common configuration baseline for a given platform (e.g., Windows version X, Linux version Y) or component type (e.g., workstation, server, router) each individual system inherits the common configuration baseline as a CI, or part of a CI, for that system. The CI is managed for use in that system to include any deviations as justified and recorded (See Section 3.2.2.iii). The point is that a CI is owned and managed as part of only one system regardless of the common configuration baseline source.

A CI may be composed of one or more system components (SCs) (e.g., server, workstation, router, application), one or more non-component (NC) system objects (e.g., documentation, diagrams, firmware), or some combination thereof as indicated in the following representations:

For example, a system with a number of servers using similar technology may be taken together as one CI (as in representation i). System applications (e.g., software applications) may be represented as one or more CIs (also as in representation i). All documentation for the system may be included in one CI or each document may be treated as a separate CI (as in representation ii). Conversely, the system owner may find that it is more expedient to include the servers, applications running on the servers, and supporting documentation in a single CI (as in representation iii). When applying representations i or ii, it is important to note that the rigor of the review and approval of change proposals for one CI (e.g., a CI composed of servers) may be higher than that applied to another CI (e.g., a CI composed of documentation). Furthermore, CIs within the same system may be tracked using different tools.

Every item within the system component inventory is associated with one and only one CI, and hence, is included within the authorization boundary of a single system.

Each CI is assigned an unambiguous identifier so that it can be uniquely referenced within SecCM processes. Each CI could have a series of approved baseline configurations as it moves through its life cycle and is the object of configuration change control. As the CI moves through its life cycle, the organization manages version numbers for the CI.

A set of data elements is maintained for each CI to define and describe the CI to enable it to be rebuilt from scratch. The types of information that are associated with a CI may include:

While decomposing a system into a number of CIs may make it easier to manage changes within the system, it is important to note that when one CI within a system changes, other CIs within the system may also be affected. Furthermore, approved changes to a CI may result in updates to the system component inventory.

Another potential type of configuration item that is considered, particularly with respect to establishment and maintenance of a configuration test program is a CI for SecCM tools and testing processes. Tools and testing processes used to validate deviations from approved system baseline configurations are under configuration control to reduce the potential for such testing to return false positive or false negative results (i.e., subject tools and processes are able to detect unauthorized configuration settings and are able to successfully recognize approved configuration settings).

SDLC Phase: Begin in Development/Acquisition phase, finalize in Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: System Owner

Supporting Roles: SSO; SA

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system level policies and procedures; system component inventory; system documents; system diagrams; system scripts; system custom code; any other system components that require configuration management

Expected Output: System components and non-component objects grouped into CIs

Relationship between an Information System and Its Configuration Items and Information System Components Figure 3-1 depicts the relationship between the system as a whole, individual system components and non-component objects, and system configuration items (CIs). The system is composed of numerous individual components and non-component objects as described above. The system components and non-component objects that require configuration management are grouped into CIs whose configurations are managed as one. For instance, in Figure 3-1 at the component level we see numerous individual desktops. At the CI level we see that all the desktops running OS QRS version 8 have been grouped into one CI and all the desktops running OS XYZ version 5 have been grouped into another CI. In this way, the system components and non-component objects with related/similar/identical configuration requirements are configuration-managed as a group rather than as individual components.

Figure 3-1 – Example of the Relationship between system and its components and CIs

A CCB or equivalent group is identified for the review and approval of configuration changes for the system. The CCB is established through the creation of a charter which defines the authority and scope of the group and how it should operate. A charter may define the CCB’s membership, the roles and responsibilities of its members, and whether it reports to an oversight body like an Executive Steering Committee or the Risk Executive (Function). A charter also describes the process by which the CCB operates, including how to handle changes and the range of dispositions (approved, not approved, on hold, etc.), evaluation criteria, and the quorum required to make configuration change control-related decisions.

The CCB plays an important role of gatekeeper in deciding which changes may be acted upon and introduced into a system. The CCB deliberately considers the potential effect of a proposed change on the functionality and secure state of the system and risk to the mission should the change be implemented in the context of the risk tolerance established by the organization. By reviewing each proposed and implemented modification, the CCB ensures that there is a disciplined, systematic, and secure approach for introducing change. Having a clearly defined process or framework for the evaluation and approval of change requests, including predefined evaluation criteria, helps to ensure that each proposed and implemented change is evaluated in a consistent and repeatable manner balancing security, business, and technical viewpoints.

Organizational policy may allow flexibility regarding the size and formality of the CCB. Low-impact and/or small, uncomplicated systems may require less formality such that the CCB may be composed of as few as two members (typically the system owner and the SSO). For high-impact systems and complex moderate-impact systems, the organization may require a CCB that is composed of at least three individuals, at least one of whom is a system owner or SSO. Additionally, the organization may determine that it is necessary to formally submit proposed changes to the CCB and go through formalized reviews and security impact analysis prior to acceptance and approval.

Regardless of the size and formalism of the CCB for a system, best practices for configuration change control require that changes to the system be vetted by at least one authorized individual who is independent of the requestor – in other words, in order to maintain adequate separation of duties, system administrators, developers, etc., are not given the authority to unilaterally propose and approve changes to the configuration of a system (excluding changes identified in procedures as being exempt from SecCM). The vetting activity is recorded in an artifact that can be archived (e.g., CCB minutes, actions to be taken, assigned responsibilities for actions, reports generated, approvals/disapprovals and rationale, etc.).

In selecting members of the CCB, an organization considers roles that represent a range of stakeholders. The viewpoints and expertise of individuals representing the organizational and/or system mission, information security (system security officers, security architects, etc.), information technology (e.g., system administrators, network engineers, enterprise architects, etc.), end users, customers, vendors, etc., are considered for inclusion in the CCB. It is not necessary that all participants have a voting role in the CCB, but their input may support improved decision making. For example, vendor participation may be valuable for insight into product-specific functions, features, or configurations but the vendor is not given a vote on approval of the change.

SDLC Phase: Begin in Development/Acquisition phase, finalize in Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager (if established at the organizational level); system owner (if established at the system level). Note: If a single CCB serves a number of systems but is not at the organizational level, the set of system owners for all of the participating systems are responsible for implementing the CCB

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); SSO

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system-level policies and procedures

Expected Output: Established Configuration Control Board and charter

The following subsections describe the Identifying and Implementing Configurations phase activities. In this phase, the activities are typically completed at the system level following the applicable organizational and/or system-specific SecCM policy and procedures. The subsections are listed in the general chronological order in which the configuration activities occur. As always, organizations have flexibility in determining which activities are performed at what level and in what order. Completion of the Identifying and Implementing Configurations phase results in implementation of a secure configuration baseline for each system and constituent CIs, (i.e., each established CI is the object of a documented and approved secure configuration).

In developing and deploying a system, secure configurations are established for the system and its constituent CIs. Secure configurations may include:

OS and application features (enabling or disabling depending on the specific o feature, setting specific parameters, etc.); Services (e.g., automatic updates) and ports (e.g., DNS over port 53); o Network protocols (e.g., NetBIOS, IPv6) and network interfaces (e.g., Bluetooth, o IEEE 802.11, infrared); Methods of remote access (e.g., SSL, VPN, SSH, IPSEC); o Access controls (e.g., controlling permissions to files, directories, registry keys, o and restricting user activities such as modifying system logs or installing applications); Management of identifiers/accounts (e.g., changing default account names, o determining length of time until inactive accounts are disabled, using unique user names, establishing user groups); Authentication controls (e.g., password length, use of special characters,o minimum password age, multifactor authentication/use of tokens); Audit settings (e.g., capturing key events such as failures, logons, permission o changes, unsuccessful file access, creation of users and objects, deletion and modification of system files, registry key and kernel changes); System settings (e.g., session timeouts, number of remote connections, sessiono lock); and Cryptography (e.g., using [FIPS 140-3]-validated cryptographic protocols and o algorithms to protect data in transit and in storage);

In many cases, organizational policies, in accordance with federal laws, standards, directives, and orders, establish generally accepted common secure configurations (e.g., National Checklist Program, DISA STIGs, CIS benchmarks). Configurations identified in the National Checklist Program Repository²⁰ as well as SCAP-expressed checklists are a source for establishing common secure configurations. Commercial product developers are also a potential source for common secure configurations. Deviations from common secure configurations are justified and recorded (see Section 3.2.2.iii).

In establishing and maintaining secure configurations, organizations consider potential interoperability conflicts with interconnected systems. Coordination of secure configuration baselines between system staff and/or the relevant CCB(s) helps ensure synchronization of secure configurations between interconnected systems to meet desired security and operational functionality.

If not identified in organizational policies and procedures, the system owner, in coordination with the SSO, has the responsibility of establishing secure configurations (based on appropriate common secure configurations, if available) for a system and its constituent CIs. Regardless of the responsible party, the secure configurations comply with all applicable federal requirements and are approved in accordance with organizational policy.

SDLC Phase: Begin in Development/Acquisition phase, finalize in Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: System Owner; SSO

Supporting Roles: SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system-level policies and procedures including mandated or suggested common secure configurations; System Security Plan/ system security requirements; system/component technical documentation

Expected Output: Initial secure baseline configuration(s) for the system and its CI(s)

Implementing secure configurations for IT products is no simple task. There are many IT products, and each has a myriad of possible parameters that can be configured. In addition, organizations have mission and business process needs which may require that IT products be configured in a particular manner. To further complicate matters, for some products, the configuration settings of the underlying platform may need to be modified to allow for the functionality required for mission accomplishment such that they deviate from the approved common secure configurations.

Using the secure configuration previously established (see Section 3.2.1) as a starting point, the following structured approach is recommended when implementing the secure configuration:

In the ideal environment, all IT products within an organization would be configured to the most secure state that still provided the functionality required by the organization. However, due to limited resources and other constraints, many organizations may find it necessary to prioritize which systems, IT products, or CIs to target first for secure configuration as they implement SecCM.

In determining the priorities for implementing secure configurations in systems, IT products, or CIs, organizations consider the following criteria:

Organizations fully test secure configurations prior to implementation in the production environment. There are a number of issues that may be encountered when implementing configurations including software compatibility and hardware device driver issues. For example, there may be legacy applications with special operating requirements that do not function correctly after a common secure configuration has been applied. Additionally, configuration errors could occur if Operating System (OS) and multiple application configurations are applied to the same component. For example, a setting for an application configuration parameter may conflict with a similar setting for an OS configuration parameter.

Virtual environments are recommended for testing secure configurations as they allow organizations to examine the functional impact on applications without having to configure actual machines.

Testing secure configuration implementations may introduce functional problems within the system or applications. For example, the new secure configuration may close a port or stop a service that is needed for OS or application functionality. These problems are examined individually and either resolved or documented as a deviation from, or exception to, the established common secure configurations.

In some cases, changing one configuration setting may require changes to another setting, another CI, or another system. For instance, a common secure configuration may specify strengthened password requirements which may require a change to existing single sign-on applications. Or there may be a requirement that the OS-provided firewall be enabled by default. To ensure that applications function as expected, the firewall policy may need to be revised to allow specific ports, services, IP addresses, etc. When conflicts between applications and secure configurations cannot be resolved, deviations are documented and approved through the configuration change control process as appropriate.

The established and tested secure configuration, including any necessary deviations, represents the preliminary baseline configuration and is recorded in order to support configuration change control/security impact analysis, incident resolution, problem solving, and monitoring activities. Once recorded, the preliminary baseline configuration is approved in accordance with organizationally defined policy. Once approved, the preliminary baseline configuration becomes the initial baseline configuration for the system and its constituent CIs.

The baseline configuration of a system includes the sum total of the secure configurations of its constituent CIs and represents the system-specific configuration against which all changes are controlled.

The baseline configuration may include, as applicable, information regarding the system architecture, the interconnection of hardware components, secure configuration settings of software components, the software load, supporting documentation, and the elements in a release package. There could be a different baseline configuration for each life cycle stage (development, test, staging, production) of the system.

When possible, organizations employ automated tools to support the management of baseline configurations and to keep the configuration information as up to date and near real time as possible. There are a number of solutions which maintain baseline configurations for a wide variety of hardware and software products. Some comprehensive SecCM solutions integrate the maintenance of baseline configurations with component inventory and monitoring tools.

Organizations are encouraged to implement baseline configurations in a centralized and automated manner using automated configuration management tools, automated scripts, vendor-provided mechanisms, etc.

Media libraries may be used to store, protect, and control the master copies of approved versions of baseline configurations. Media may be the means to store information (paper, tapes, CD/DVDs, USB drives, etc.) or the information itself (e.g., files, software code). The media library may also include commercially licensed software, custom-developed software, and other artifacts and documents generated throughout the SDLC.

SDLC Phase: Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: System Owner; SSO

Supporting Roles: SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system-level policies and procedures including mandated or suggested common secure configurations; System Security Plan/system security requirements; system/component technical documentation

Expected Output: Approved, recorded, and deployed secure baseline configuration(s) for system CI(s), including recorded deviations from common secure configurations

If organizations are to maintain secure configurations for systems in an environment where technology is continually evolving and the number and seriousness of threats is expanding, changes to system configurations need to be managed and controlled.

The following subsections describe the Controlling Configuration Changes phase activities. In this phase, the activities are normally implemented at the system level following policy and procedures. The following subsections are listed in the order in which the configuration activities typically occur. As always, organizations have flexibility in determining which activities are performed at what level and in what order. Completion of the Controlling Configuration Changes phase results in implementation of access restrictions for change, and documented configuration change control and security impact analysis processes.

Access restrictions for change represent the enforcement side of SecCM. Configuration change control is a process for funneling changes for a system through a managed process; however, without access restrictions, there is nothing preventing someone from implementing changes outside of the process. Access restrictions are a mechanism to enforce configuration control processes by controlling who has access to the system and/or its constituent CIs to make changes. Access restrictions for change may also include controlling access to additional change-related information such as change requests, records, correspondence, change test plans and results, etc.

To implement access restrictions for change:

i. Determine the possible types of configuration changes that can be made in the system including network, operating system, and application layers; ii. Determine which individuals have privileged access and which of those privileged individuals are authorized to make what types of changes; and iii. Implement technical mechanisms (e.g., role-based access, file/group permissions, etc.) to ensure that only authorized individuals are able to make the appropriate changes.

SDLC Phase: Implementation/Assessment phase

Primary Roles: System Owner; SSO

Supporting Roles: SA

Expected Input: System Security Plan/system security requirements; organizational and/or system-level policies and procedures

Expected Output: Appropriate access restrictions for change implemented for the system

A well-defined configuration change control process is fundamental to any SecCM program. Configuration change control is the process for ensuring that configuration changes to a system are formally requested, evaluated for their security impact, tested for effectiveness, and approved before the changes are implemented. Although the process may have different steps and levels of rigor depending on organizational risk tolerance and/or system-impact level, configuration change control generally consists of the following steps:

i. Request the change. A request for change may originate from any number of sources including the end user of the system, a help desk, or from management. Proposed changes may also originate from vendor-supplied patches, application updates, security alerts, system scans, etc. See Appendix E for a Sample Change Request Template.

ii. Record the request for the proposed change. A change request is formally entered into the configuration change control process when it is recorded in accordance with organizational procedures. Organizations may use paper-based requests, emails, a help desk, and/or automated tools to track change requests, route them based on workflow processes, and allow for electronic acknowledgements/approvals.

iii. Determine if the proposed change requires configuration control. Some types of changes may be exempt from configuration change control or pre-approved as defined in the SecCM plan and/or procedures. If the change is exempt or pre-approved, note this on the change request and allow the change to be made without further analysis or approval; however, system documentation may still require updating (e.g., the System Security Plan, the baseline configuration, system component inventory, etc.).

iv. Analyze the proposed change for its security impact on the system (see Section 3.3.3).

v. Test the proposed change for security and functional impacts. Testing confirms the impacts identified during analysis and/or reveals additional impacts. The impacts of the change are presented to the CCB and to the AO.

vi. Approve the change. This step is usually performed by the CCB. The CCB may require the implementation of additional controls if the change is necessary for mission accomplishment but has a negative impact on the security of the system and organization. Implementation of additional controls is coordinated with the AO and System Owner.

vii. Implement the approved change. Once approved, authorized staff makes the change. Depending upon the scope of the change, it may be helpful to develop an implementation plan. Change implementation includes changes to applicable/related configuration parameters as well as updating system documentation to reflect the change(s). Stakeholders (e.g., users, management, help desk, etc.) are notified about the change, especially if the change implementation requires a service interruption or alters the functionality of the system. In the case of the latter situation, user and help desk training may be required.

viii. Verify that the change was implemented correctly (e.g., vulnerability scans, post-implementation security and functionality analysis, reassessment of affected security controls, etc.). Configuration change control is not complete and a change request not closed until it has been confirmed that the change was deployed without issues. Although the initial security impact analysis and testing may have found no impact from the change, an improperly implemented change can cause its own security issues.

ix. Close out the change request. With completion of the above steps, the change request is closed out in accordance with organizational procedures.

Changes are also evaluated for consistency with organizational enterprise architecture.

If configuration change control procedures have been defined by the organization, the system owner interprets the procedures in the context of the target system, and refines the process to make it practical to perform. Changes to the process may need to be approved by the organizational CCB in accordance with SecCM policy.

It is important that IT operations and maintenance staff who support the system are active participants in the configuration change control process and are aware of their responsibility for following it. If significant business process reengineering is needed, for example, updating help desk activities or a patch management process, training may be required.

Unscheduled or Unauthorized Changes

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see activities such as deploying or disposing of hardware, making changes to configurations, and installing patches occurring outside the configuration change control process even though such activities can have a significant impact on the security of a system. Additionally, situations may arise that necessitate an unscheduled (emergency) change. It is incumbent upon system owners to identify all sources of change to make certain that changes requiring configuration control go through the configuration change control process, even if it is after the fact.

When unscheduled changes must be made and time does not allow for following the established configuration change control process, unscheduled changes are still managed and controlled. Organizations include instructions for handling unscheduled changes within the configuration change control procedures as well as instructions for handling unauthorized changes that are subsequently discovered. Configuration change control procedures also address flaw remediation to allow rapid but controlled change to fix software errors. Unscheduled changes are reviewed/resolved by the CCB as soon as is practical after unscheduled changes are made.

SDLC Phase: Implementation/Assessment phase, ongoing during the Operations and Maintenance phase

Primary Roles: System Owner; CCB; SSO

Supporting Roles: SA; System User

Expected Input: Organizational and/or system-level SecCM policies and procedures; System Security Plan/system security requirements

Expected Output: Documented and implemented configuration change control process

Security impact analysis is one of the most critical steps in the configuration change control process with respect to SecCM. Organizations spend significant resources developing and maintaining the secure state of systems; failing to properly analyze a change for its security impact can undo the system security effort and expose the organization to attack. The security impact analysis activity provides the linkage between configuration change control and improved security. The management of changes through a structured process has its own benefits – for instance, increased efficiency. However, it is only when those changes are evaluated for their security impact that the configuration change control process realizes benefits for the security posture of a system.

Very large organizations or system owners of large and complex systems may find it helpful to create a Configuration Review Board to manage and conduct security impact analyses and report the findings to the relevant CCB.

Changes are examined for impact on security, and for mitigating controls that can be implemented to reduce any resulting vulnerability. Security impact analyses are conducted by individuals or teams with technical knowledge of the system throughout the SDLC such that the impact of changes on security is considered at every phase:

The process for a security impact analysis consists of the following steps:

v. Plan Safeguards and Countermeasures - In cases where risks have been identified and are unacceptable, organizations use the security impact analysis to revise the change or to plan safeguards and countermeasures to reduce the risk. For instance, if the security impact analysis reveals that the proposed change causes a modification to a common secure configuration setting, plans to rework the change to function within the existing setting are initiated. If a change involves new elevated privileges for users, plans to mitigate the additional risk are made (e.g., submission of requests for higher clearance levels for those users or implementation of stronger access controls).

See Appendix I for a sample Security Impact Analysis Template.

SDLC Phase: Operations and Maintenance phase

Primary Roles: SSO

Supporting Roles: AO; System Owner; SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: Change request and/or any supporting documentation; System Security Plan including the current approved baseline configuration; system audit records; relevant COTS vulnerability information

Expected Output: Identified vulnerabilities; risk assessment of identified vulnerabilities including any potential countermeasures; analysis of the security impact of the change

Once the change has been analyzed, approved, tested, implemented, and verified, the organization ensures that updates have been made to supporting documents such as technical designs and baseline configurations, in addition to security-related documentation such as System Security Plans, Risk Assessments, Assessment Reports, and Plans of Action & Milestones. In cases where there is high risk or where significant changes have been made, a system reauthorization may be required.

As changes are made to baseline configurations, the new baseline becomes the current version, and the previous baseline is no longer valid but is retained for historical purposes. If there are issues with a production release, retention of previous versions allows for a rollback or restoration to a previous secure and functional version of the baseline configuration. Additionally, archiving previous baseline configurations is useful for incident response and traceability support during formal audits.²³

SDLC Phase: Operations and Maintenance phase

Primary Roles: SSO

Supporting Roles: System Owner; SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: Identified vulnerabilities; risk assessment of identified vulnerabilities including any potential countermeasures; analysis of the security impact of the change

Expected Output: Updated technical and system security-related documentation; decision on whether or not a system reauthorization is required; new baseline configuration

If a system is inconsistent with approved configurations as defined by the organization’s baseline configurations of system CIs, the System Security Plan, etc., or if an organization’s component inventory is inaccurate, the organization may be unaware of potential vulnerabilities and not take actions that would otherwise limit those vulnerabilities and protect it from attacks (i.e., reduce risk). Monitoring activities offer the organization better visibility into the actual state of security for its systems and also support adherence to SecCM policies and procedures. SecCM monitoring also provides input to the organization’s overall continuous monitoring strategy.²⁴

Organizations implement the configuration monitoring strategy developed during the SecCM planning phase. SecCM monitoring activities confirm that the existing configuration is identical to the current approved baseline configuration, that all items in the component inventory can be identified and are associated with the appropriate system, and, if possible, whether there are any unapproved (i.e., not recorded in the component inventory) components. Unapproved components often create a major security risk; unapproved components rarely have updated patches, are not configured using the approved baseline configurations, and are not assessed or included in the authorization to operate. For example, if a technician uses a router for testing and then forgets to remove it, or if an employee sets up a wireless access point in a remote office without management consent, the organization may be vulnerable without being aware of it.

SecCM monitoring is accomplished through assessment and reporting activities. For organizations with a large number of components, the only practical and effective solution for SecCM monitoring activities is the use of automated solutions that use standardized reporting methods such as SCAP. A system may have many components and many baseline configurations. To manually collect information on the configuration of all components and assess them against policy and approved baseline configurations is not practical, or even possible, in most cases. Automated tools can also facilitate reporting for Security Information and Event Management applications that can be accessed by management and/or formatted into other reports on baseline configuration status in support of overall continuous monitoring. Care is exercised in collecting and analyzing the results generated by automated tools to account for any false positives.

SecCM monitoring may be supported by numerous means, including, but not limited to:

followed or need updating. Automated tools are available that monitor systems for changes and alert system staff if unauthorized changes occur or are attempted.

When possible, organizations seek to normalize data to describe the system in order that the various outputs from monitoring can be combined, correlated, analyzed, and reported in a consistent manner. SCAP provides a common language for describing vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and products and is an obvious starting point for organizations seeking a consistent way of communicating across the organization regarding the security status of the enterprise architecture (see Section 3.5).

When inconsistencies are discovered as a result of monitoring activities, the organization may want to take remedial action. Action taken may be via manual methods or via use of automated tools. Automated tools are preferable since actions are not reliant upon human intervention and are taken immediately once an unauthorized change is identified. Examples of possible actions include:

Changes detected as a result of monitoring activities are reconciled with approved changes. Specifically, reconciliation attempts to answer the following:

Additionally, the results of monitoring activities are analyzed to determine the reason(s) that an unauthorized change occurred. There are many potential causes for unauthorized changes. They may stem from:

Analyzing unauthorized changes identified through monitoring can not only identify vulnerabilities, but can also give organizations insight into any potential systemic problems with how the configuration change control process is managed. Once organizations are aware of any such problems, actions can be taken such as reengineering processes, implementing improved access restrictions for change, and providing training on SecCM processes.

Finally, monitoring may support the generation of metrics related to SecCM activities. Analysis and consolidation of monitoring reports can generate metrics such as the percentage of systems that are implemented in accordance with their approved baselines, the percentage of IT products that are configured in accordance with the organizationally defined common secure configurations, or percentage of system changes that have been subjected to security impact analyses. Thus, SecCM monitoring may also be a source of information that supports metrics requirements associated with the organization’s overall continuous monitoring process.

Results of SecCM monitoring are reported to management as defined by organizational policy and the SecCM strategy. Various types of reporting may be needed to support compliance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, standards and guidelines.

The SecCM monitoring strategy and procedures are reviewed and revised to ensure that organizational security requirements continue to be met.

SDLC Phase: Operations and Maintenance phase

Primary Roles: SAISO (for implementing organization-wide monitoring tools and overseeing monitoring activities potentially including engaging independent assessment teams); System Owner (for ensuring that configuration monitoring is implemented at the system level as defined in the strategy)

Supporting Roles: SSO; SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: SecCM monitoring strategy; automated tools; system component inventory; current baseline configuration(s); audit records; System Security Plan/system security requirements

Expected Output: SecCM monitoring reports, including security assessment reports and output from automated tools, as defined in the strategy and schedule

SecCM monitoring tools identified during the planning phase are implemented and managed during the monitoring phase. Some tools may support SecCM activities in multiple phases, i.e., tools may have already been implemented and supporting activities during the identifying and implementing configurations phase and/or the controlling configuration changes phase. The monitoring-related functionality of such tools is then leveraged and managed during the monitoring phase.

Before implementing automated monitoring tools, organizations conduct a security impact analysis to ensure that the tools do not have a negative effect on the existing enterprise architecture as a whole or on individual systems/components.

It is important to note that automated tools may not support or be able to function with all organizational systems or all components within a system. Organizations document the systems and/or components that are not monitored via automated tools and a manual process is developed and implemented for those systems/components.

SDLC Phase: Implementation phase

Primary Roles: SecCM Program Manager; System Owner

Supporting Roles: SAISO (if s/he is not the SecCM Program Manager); CIO; AO; SSO; SA; System/Software Developer

Expected Input: Configuration monitoring strategy; enterprise architecture information and/or system architecture information; tools identified during the planning phase, information about other IT products with which monitoring tools will interface

Expected Output: Implemented configuration monitoring tools

Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) is a suite of specifications²⁶ that standardize the format and nomenclature by which information about software flaws and secure configurations can be communicated. SCAP-enabled tools can be used for maintaining the security of enterprise systems, such as automatically verifying the installation of patches, checking system security configuration settings against an expected baseline, and examining systems for signs of compromise.

To automate configuration management and produce assessment evidence for many NIST [SP 800-53] controls, federal agencies use SCAP-enabled tools along with SCAP-expressed checklists. SCAP-expressed checklists are customized as appropriate to meet specific organizational requirements. SCAP-expressed checklists can map individual system configuration settings to their corresponding security requirements. Mappings between settings and requirements can help demonstrate that the implemented settings adhere to these requirements. The mappings are embedded in SCAP-expressed checklists which allow SCAP-enabled tools to automatically generate standardized assessment and compliance evidence. The embedded mappings in SCAP-enabled tools can provide a substantial savings in effort and cost.

NIST encourages security software vendors to incorporate support for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE), Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE), and Software Identification (SWID) Tags into their products, as well as encourage all software vendors to include CVE and CCE identifiers and software identifiers provided by the Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) and SWID in their vulnerability and patch advisories.

25NIST[SP 800-126] provides information on the Security Content Automation Protocol.

SCAP VERSION 1.3 COMPONENTS²⁷

LAWS, POLICIES, DIRECTIVES, REGULATIONS, MEMORANDA, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

[40 USC 11331] Title 40 U.S. Code, Sec. 11331, Responsibilities for Federal information systems standards. 2017 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title40/USCODE-2017-title40-subtitleIII-chap113-subchapIII-sec11331

[44 USC 3502] Title 44 U.S. Code, Sec. 3502, Definitions. 2012 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title44/USCODE-2017-title44-chap35-subchapI-sec3502

[44 USC 3542] Title 44 U.S. Code, Sec. 3542, Definitions. 2006 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2008-title44/USCODE-2008-title44-chap35-subchapIII-sec3542

[44 USC 3544] Title 44 U.S. Code, Sec. 3544, Definitions. 2006 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2008-title44/USCODE-2008-title44-chap35-subchapIII-sec3544

[44 USC 3552] Title 44 U.S. Code, Sec. 3552, Definitions. 2012 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title44/USCODE-2017-title44-chap35-subchapII-sec3552

[44 USC 3601] Title 44 U.S. Code, Sec. 3601, Definitions. 2012 ed. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title44/USCODE-2017-title44-chap36-sec3601

[CMMI] Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). https://cmmiinstitute.com/

[CNSS 4009] Committee for National Security Systems (CNSS) Instruction 4009, Committee on National Security systems (CNSS) Glossary, April 2015. https://www.cnss.gov/CNSS/issuances/Instructions.cfm

[FIPS 140-3] National Institute of Standards and Technology (2019) Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) 140-3. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.140-3

[FIPS 199] National Institute of Standards and Technology (2004) Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) 199. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.199

[FIPS 200] National Institute of Standards and Technology (2006) Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) 200. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.200

[FISMA] Federal Information Security Modernization Act (P.L. 113-283), December 2014. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-113publ283

[IEEE 828-2012] IEEE 828-2012-IEEE Standard for Configuration Management in Software and Software Engineering. https://standards.ieee.org/standard/828-2012.html

[ISO 10007] International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10007:2017, Quality management – Guidelines for configuration management. https://www.iso.org/standard/70400.html

[ITIL] Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/itil

[NISTIR 7693] Wunder J, Halbardier AM, Waltermire DA (2011) Specification for Asset Identification 1.1. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 7693. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7693

[OMB A-130] Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, July 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A130/a130revised.pdf

[SP 800-18] Swanson MA, Hash J, Bowen P (2006) Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-18, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-18r1

[SP 800-25] Lyons-Burke K, Committee FPKIS (2000) Federal Agency Use of Public Key Technology for Digital Signatures and Authentication. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-25. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-25

[SP 800-28] Jansen W, Winograd T, Scarfone KA (2008) Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile Code. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-28, Version 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-28ver2

[SP 800-30] Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2012) Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-30, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-30r1

[SP 800-32] Kuhn R, Hu VC, Polk T, Chang S-jH (2001) Introduction to Public Key Technology and the Federal PKI Infrastructure. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-32. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-32

[SP 800-37] Joint Task Force (2018) Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-37, Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-37r2

[SP 800-39] Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2011) Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-39. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-39

[SP 800-40] Souppaya MP, Scarfone KA (2013) Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Technologies. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-40, Rev. 3. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-40r3

[SP 800-41] Scarfone KA, Hoffman P (2009) Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall Policy. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-41, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-41r1

[SP 800-44] Tracy MC, Jansen W, Scarfone KA, Winograd T (2007) Guidelines on Securing Public Web Servers. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-44, Version 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-44ver2

[SP 800-45] Tracy MC, Jansen W, Scarfone KA, Butterfield J (2007) Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-45, Version 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-45ver2

[SP 800-46] Souppaya MP, Scarfone KA (2016) Guide to Enterprise Telework, Remote Access, and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-46, Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-46r2

[SP 800-47] Grance T, Hash J, Peck S, Smith J, Korow-Diks K (2002) Security Guide for Interconnecting Information Technology Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-47. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-47

[SP 800-52] Polk T, McKay KA, Chokhani S (2014) Guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Implementations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-52, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-52r1

[SP 800-53] Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2013) Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4, Includes updates as of January 22, 2015. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r4

[SP 800-53A] Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative (2014) Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Building Effective Assessment Plans. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53A, Rev. 4, Includes updates as of December 18, 2014. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53Ar4

[SP 800-54] Kuhn R, Sriram K, Montgomery DC (2007) Border Gateway Protocol Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-54. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-54

[SP 800-55] Chew E, Swanson MA, Stine KM, Bartol N, Brown A, Robinson W (2008) Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-55, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-55r1

[SP 800-57P1] Barker EB (2016) Recommendation for Key Management, Part 1:

General. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-57 Part 1, Rev. 4. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-57pt1r4

[SP 800-57P2] Barker EB, Barker WC (2019) Recommendation for Key Management:

Part 2 – Best Practices for Key Management Organizations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-57 Part 2, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-57pt2r1

[SP 800-57P3] Barker EB, Dang QH (2015) Recommendation for Key Management, Part 3: Application-Specific Key Management Guidance. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-57 Part 3, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-57pt3r1

[SP 800-58] Kuhn R, Walsh TJ, Fries S (2005) Security Considerations for Voice Over IP Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-58. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-58

[SP 800-63B] Grassi PA, Newton EM, Perlner RA, Regenscheid AR, Fenton JL, Burr WE, Richer JP, Lefkovitz NB, Danker JM, Choong Y-Y, Greene KK, Theofanos MF (2017) Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-63B, Includes updates as of December 1, 2017. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63B

[SP 800-70] Quinn SD, Souppaya MP, Cook MR, Scarfone KA (2018) National Checklist Program for IT Products: Guidelines for Checklist Users and Developers. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-70, Rev. 4. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-70r4

[SP 800-77] Frankel SE, Kent K, Lewkowski R, Orebaugh AD, Ritchey RW, Sharma SR (2005) Guide to IPsec VPNs. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-77. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77

[SP 800-81-2] Chandramouli R, Rose SW (2013) Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-81-2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-81-2

[SP 800-82] Stouffer KA, Lightman S, Pillitteri VY, Abrams M, Hahn A (2015) Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-82, Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-82r2

[SP 800-92] Kent K, Souppaya MP (2006) Guide to Computer Security Log Management. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-92. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-92

[SP 800-94] Scarfone KA, Mell PM (2007) Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS). (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-94. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-94

[SP 800-95] Singhal A, Winograd T, Scarfone KA (2007) Guide to Secure Web Services. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-95. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-95

[SP 800-97] Frankel SE, Eydt B, Owens L, Scarfone KA (2007) Establishing Wireless Robust Security Networks: A Guide to IEEE 802.11i. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-97. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-97

[SP 800-98] Karygiannis T, Eydt B, Barber G, Bunn L, Phillips T (2007) Guidelines for Securing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-98. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-98

[SP 800-107] Dang QH (2012) Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-107, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-107r1

[SP 800-111] Scarfone KA, Souppaya MP, Sexton M (2007) Guide to Storage Encryption Technologies for End User Devices. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-111. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-111

[SP 800-113] Frankel SE, Hoffman P, Orebaugh AD, Park R (2008) Guide to SSL VPNs. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-113. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-113

[SP 800-115] Scarfone KA, Souppaya MP, Cody A, Orebaugh AD (2008) Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-115. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-115

[SP 800-121] Padgette J, Bahr J, Holtmann M, Batra M, Chen L, Smithbey R, Scarfone KA (2017) Guide to Bluetooth Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-121, Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-121r2

[SP 800-122] McCallister E, Grance T, Scarfone KA (2010) Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-122. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-122

[SP 800-123] Scarfone KA, Jansen W, Tracy MC (2008) Guide to General Server Security. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-123. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-123

[SP 800-124] Souppaya MP, Scarfone KA (2013) Guidelines for Managing the Security of Mobile Devices in the Enterprise. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-124, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-124r1

[SP 800-126] Waltermire DA, Quinn SD, Booth H, III, Scarfone KA, Prisaca D (2018) The Technical Specification for the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP): SCAP Version 1.3. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-126, Rev. 3. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-126r3

[SP 800-130] Barker EB, Smid ME, Branstad DK, Chokhani S (2013) A Framework for Designing Cryptographic Key Management Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-130. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-130

[SP 800-131A] Barker EB, Roginsky A (2019) Transitioning the Use of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Lengths. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-131A, Rev. 2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-131Ar2

[SP 800-132] Sönmez Turan M, Barker EB, Burr WE, Chen L (2010) Recommendation for Password-Based Key Derivation: Part 1: Storage Applications. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-132. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-132

[SP 800-135] Dang QH (2011) Recommendation for Existing Application-Specific Key Derivation Functions. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-135, Rev. 1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-135r1

[SP 800-137] Dempsey KL, Chawla NS, Johnson LA, Johnston R, Jones AC, Orebaugh AD, Scholl MA, Stine KM (2011) Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-137. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-137

[SP 800-161] Boyens JM, Paulsen C, Moorthy R, Bartol N (2015) Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-161. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-161

[SP 800-167] Sedgewick A, Souppaya MP, Scarfone KA (2015) Guide to Application Whitelisting. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-167. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-167

[SP 800-171] Ross RS, Dempsey KL, Viscuso P, Riddle M, Guissanie G (2016) Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171, Rev. 1, Includes updates as of June 7, 2018. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r1

[SP 800-171A] Ross RS, Dempsey KL, Pillitteri VY (2018) Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171A. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171A

[SP 800-175B] Barker EB (2016) Guideline for Using Cryptographic Standards in the Federal Government: Cryptographic Mechanisms. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-175B. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-175B

[SP 800-179] Trapnell M, Scarfone KA, Trapnell E, Badger ML, Souppaya MP, Yaga DJ (2016) Guide to Securing Apple OS X 10.10 Systems for IT Professionals: A NIST Security Configuration Checklist. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-179. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-179

[SP 800-181] Newhouse WD, Witte GA, Scribner B, Keith S (2017) National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-181. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181

Appendix B provides definitions for security terminology used within Special Publication 800-128. Unless specifically defined in this glossary, all terms used in this publication are consistent with those definitions and the definitions contained in [CNSS 4009], National Information Assurance (IA) Glossary.

adequate security [OMB A-130] — Security protections commensurate with the risk resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information. This includes ensuring that information hosted on behalf of an agency and information systems and applications used by the agency operate effectively and provide appropriate confidentiality, integrity, and availability protections through the application of cost-effective security controls.

agency [OMB A-130] — Any executive agency or department, military department, Federal Government corporation, Federal Government-controlled corporation, or other establishment in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, or any independent regulatory agency.

asset identification — SCAP constructs to uniquely identify assets (components) based on known identifiers and/or known information about the assets.

asset reporting format (ARF) — SCAP data model for expressing the transport format of information about assets (components) and the relationships between assets and reports.

authentication [FIPS 200] — Verifying the identity of a user, process, or device, often as a prerequisite to allowing access to resources in a system.

authorizing official [OMB A-130] — A senior Federal official or executive with the authority to authorize (i.e., assume responsibility for) operation of an information system or the use of a designated set of common controls at an acceptable level of risk to agency operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), agency assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation.

baseline configuration — A documented set of specifications for a system, or a configuration item within a system, that has been formally reviewed and agreed on at a given point in time, and which can be changed only through change control procedures.

checksum [CNSSI-4009] — A value computed on data to detect error or manipulation.

chief information officer [OMB A-130] — The senior official that provides advice and other assistance to the head of the agency and other senior management personnel of the agency to ensure that IT is acquired and information resources are managed for the agency in a manner that achieves the agency’s strategic goals and information resources management goals; and is responsible for ensuring agency compliance with, and prompt, efficient, and effective implementation of, the information policies and information resources management responsibilities, including the reduction of information collection burdens on the public.

common configuration enumeration (CCE) — A SCAP specification that provides unique, common identifiers for configuration settings found in a wide variety of hardware and software products.²⁸

common configuration scoring system (CCSS) — A SCAP specification for measuring the severity of software security configuration issues.

common platform enumeration (CPE) — A SCAP specification that provides a standard naming convention for operating systems, hardware, and applications for the purpose of providing consistent, easily parsed names that can be shared by multiple parties and solutions to refer to the same specific platform type.²⁹

common secure configuration — A recognized standardized and established benchmark (e.g., National Checklist Program, DISA STIGs, CIS Benchmarks, etc.) that stipulates specific secure configuration settings for a given IT platform.

common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVE) — An SCAP specification that provides unique, common names for publicly known information system vulnerabilities.³⁰

common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) — An SCAP specification for communicating the characteristics of vulnerabilities and measuring their relative severity.³¹

component — See system component.

configuration — The possible conditions, parameters, and specifications with which an information system or system component can be described or arranged.

configuration baseline — See baseline configuration.

configuration control [CNSSI-4009] — Process for controlling modifications to hardware, firmware, software, and documentation to protect the information system against improper modifications before, during, and after system implementation.

configuration control board [CNSSI-4009] — A group of qualified people with responsibility for the process of regulating and approving changes to hardware, firmware, software, and documentation throughout the development and operational life cycle of an information system.

configuration item — An aggregation of information system components that is designated for configuration management and treated as a single entity in the configuration management process.

configuration management — A collection of activities focused on establishing and maintaining the integrity of products and systems, through control of the processes for initializing, changing, and monitoring the configurations of those products and systems throughout the system development life cycle.

configuration management plan — A comprehensive description of the roles, responsibilities, policies, and procedures that apply when managing the configuration of products and systems.

configuration settings — The set of parameters that can be changed in hardware, software, and/or firmware that affect the security posture and/or functionality of the information system.