top of page

Working Mothers

Public·9 members
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen

NIST Draft On Directions In Security Metrics Research

The near-term activities will focus on building consensus on definitions as well as developing common taxonomy and nomenclature. With further research and collaboration to provide a more rounded perspective, the road map will address shared objectives and activities that could eventually provide much more practical assistance to those who make cybersecurity deployment decisions.

NIST Draft on Directions in Security Metrics Research


NIST contributes to the research, standards and data required to realize the full promise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool that will enable American innovation, enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. Much of our work focuses on cultivating trust in the design, development, use and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and systems. We are doing this by:

The Feature Paper can be either an original research article, a substantial novel research study that often involvesseveral techniques or approaches, or a comprehensive review paper with concise and precise updates on the latestprogress in the field that systematically reviews the most exciting advances in scientific literature. This type ofpaper provides an outlook on future directions of research or possible applications.

The standard is published in draft mode, and closed to comments as of February 25. The time is now to begin to restructure the way we approach the system life cycle, bringing cyber resilience into the equation every step of the way. While it remains a full team effort, responsibility for engineering trustworthy secure systems now rests within the scope of software and systems security engineering.

International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF): The FDA serves as a co-chair of the IMDRF working group tasked with drafting a global medical device cybersecurity guide. The purpose of the guide is to promote a globally harmonized approach to medical device cybersecurity that at a fundamental level ensures the safety and performance of medical devices while encouraging innovation. The guide is thus intended to provide medical device cybersecurity advice for stakeholders across the device lifecycle on topics including but not limited to medical device cybersecurity terminology, stakeholders' shared responsibility, and information sharing. The finalized guide was published on March 18, 2020.

The reporter is afraid of legal action: To many in the information security community, the federal government has a reputation for being defensive or litigious in dealing with outside security researchers. Compounding this, many government information systems are accompanied by strongly worded legalistic statements warning visitors against unauthorized use. Without clear, warm assurances that good faith security research is welcomed and authorized, researchers may fear legal reprisal, and some may choose not to report at all.

iv. A commitment to not recommend or pursue legal action against anyone for security research activities that the agency concludes represents a good faith effort to follow the policy, and deem that activity authorized.

More important than a target timeline is ongoing, meaningful communication with vulnerability reporters. In research that surveyed populations of software vendors and security researchers, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration summarized perspectives on timelines and communication:

If CISA receives a report for a system you manage, we will point reporters to your security contact/VDP. We will also serve as the last resort for researchers when they cannot find a contact or receive no response.

NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. RS.AN-5: Processes are established to receive, analyze and respond to vulnerabilities disclosed to the organization from internal and external sources (e.g. internal testing, security bulletins, or security researchers). =49

The first version of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF) was published in 2014 to provide guidance for organizations looking to bolster their cybersecurity defenses, and has more recently been updated as Version 1.1. It was created by cybersecurity professionals from government, academia, and various industries at the behest of President Barack Obama and later made into federal government policy by the new administration.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-regulatory government agency that develops technology, metrics, and standards to drive innovation and economic competitiveness. It has several publications about security, among them is NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations.

As with other risk management frameworks developed by NIST, such as the Cybersecurity Framework, the final AI RMF could have wide-ranging implications for the private and public sectors. NIST is seeking comments on the current draft of the AI RMF by April 29, 2022.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released on Tuesday an initial public draft that guides how to improve the security of operational technology (OT) systems while addressing their performance, reliability, and safety requirements. The NIST SP 800-82 document provides an overview of OT and typical system topologies, identifies typical threats to organizational mission and business functions supported by OT, describes typical vulnerabilities in OT, and provides recommended security safeguards and countermeasures to manage the associated risks.

The draft document aligns with other OT security standards and guidelines, including the cybersecurity framework and new tailoring guidance for NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 security controls. It also delivers an OT overlay for NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 security controls that provide tailored security control baselines for low-, moderate- and high-impact OT systems.

While the intended audience of the NIST draft document is varied, it includes control engineers, integrators, and architects who design or implement OT systems, vendors developing products that will be deployed as part of an OT system, engineers, system administrators, and other information technology (IT) professionals who administer, patch, or secure OT systems. It also covers security consultants who perform security assessments and penetration testing of OT systems, managers responsible for OT systems, senior management who need to better understand the risk for OT systems as they justify and apply for an OT cybersecurity program, and researchers and analysts who are trying to understand the unique security needs of OT systems.

NIST has also provided an in-depth list of questions, metrics, and recommendations for recovering from an incident that will help you guide your team in recovering from a security incident in a meaningful way and learning from it, and not just simply moving on with your work.

Hyperproof can also help your organization quickly implement SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and other security/privacy frameworks, and remove a significant amount of administrative overhead from compliance audits.

Security programs overseen by NIST and CSE focus on working with government and industry to establish more secure systems and networks by developing, managing and promoting security assessment tools, techniques, services, and supporting programs for testing, evaluation and validation; and addresses such areas as: development and maintenance of security metrics, security evaluation criteria and evaluation methodologies, tests and test methods; security-specific criteria for laboratory accreditation; guidance on the use of evaluated and tested products; research to address assurance methods and system-wide security and assessment methodologies; security protocol validation activities; and appropriate coordination with assessment-related activities of voluntary industry standards bodies and other assessment regimes.

In order to develop a cybersecurity risk management framework for HIoT BC-IdM systems, we used the previous general security risk assessment and management standards and frameworks from related studies, following the research methodology. This work has three main research questions, as follows:

The research methodology phases: (Step 1) conduct a literature review. (Step 2); taxonomy design.; (Step 3) map the data from the taxonomy to the HIoT BC-IdM system.; (Step 4) develop the cybersecurity risk management framework.

The majority of the requirements, controls, risk assessments, and management frameworks were derived by researchers and refer to international and national regulations and standards. Several standards and regulations were found in the literature. Some of them were outdated [21] and have been replaced with new versions, such as the British Security Standard BS7799 [22], which was replaced by ISO/IEC risk assessment family standards, such as ISO/IEC27005. Table 8 presents the identified general standards and regulations relating to HIoT, BC, and IdM security risks that are in use. Those that could not be derived from the SLR were derived via GL.

Security risk management in this work is comprehensive and covers security and privacy assessment aspects. Every security risk management process should be based on regulations that are developed by specialist organizations, requirements that are derived from regulations and standards, security controls that are based on requirements, countermeasures that are based on controls, and control assessments derived from regulations and best practices. Countermeasures to mitigate or to stop the risks should be evaluated using metrics that meet system needs and the required functionalities. Moreover, recommendations from experts should be considered to build a reliable IdM system. IdM systems should be designed accurately, and the technologies used in them should be used securely, as their vulnerabilities can be exploited, which might result in user data breaches. Thus, there should be a strong and uncomplicated authentication mechanism to allow users to detect attack activities, such as spoofing attacks, and security and Privacy by Design should be built with the anticipation that attacks are going to happen [135]. Moreover, concerns around used technologies, such as BC, should be identified and dealt with appropriately in order to protect HIoT user security, privacy, and safety. 350c69d7ab


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page