Archived NIST Technical Series Publication 

The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. 

It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). 

Archived Publication 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Publication Date(s): 

Withdrawal Date: 

Withdrawal Note: 

Superseding Publication(s) 

The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Author(s): 

Publication Date(s): 

URL/DOI: 

 

Additional Information (if applicable) 

Contact:

Latest revision of the 

attached publication: 

Related information: 

Withdrawal 

announcement (link): 

Date updated: ƵŐƵƐƚς, 2015 

NIST Special Publication 800-64

Security Considerations in the Information System Development

Life Cycle

October 2003

June 2004

SP 800-64 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of

SP 800-64 Revision 1 (June 2004).

NIST Special Publication 800-64 Revision 1

Security Considerations in the Information System Development Life

Cycle

Tim Grance, Joan Hash, Marc Stevens

June 2004

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-64r1

Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab)

SP 800-64 Revision 2 (as of August 6, 2015)

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/sdlc/

N/A
NIST Special Publication 800-64 

Special Publication 800-64

Security Considerations in the 

Information System Development Life 

Cycle 

Recommendations of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Tim Grance

Joan Hash 

Marc Stevens
NIST Special Publication 800-64 
NIST Special Publication 800-64 

NIST Special Publication 800-64 Security Considerations in the 

Information System 

Development Life Cycle 

Tim Grance, Joan Hash, and Marc Stevens 

C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y

Computer Security Division 

Information Technology Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 

October 2003 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Acknowledgements 

The authors, Tim Grance and Joan Hash of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

and Marc Stevens of Booz Allen Hamilton, wish to thank their many colleagues who reviewed drafts of 

this document and contributed to its technical content. We also gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the 

many comments we received from readers of the public and private sectors, whose valuable insights 

improved the quality and usefulness of this document. The authors would like to specifically

acknowledge some key organizations whose extensive feedback substantially contributed to the 

development of the document. These organizations include: MITRE, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Treasury, Social Security Administration, General Accounting Office, Internal Revenue 

Service, Corbett Technologies, National Archives and Records Administration, and the Tennessee Valley

Authority. The authors would also like to acknowledge some key persons for their extensive review and 

comments: Ron Ross for his review on the certification and accreditation, Common Criteria, and 

assurance sections; Bill Burr, Tim Polk, Ron Tencati, and Annabelle Lee for their reviews of the 

cryptography section; Ramaswamy Chandramouli for his review of the access control section; Marianne 

Swanson, Gary Stoneburner, Curtis Barker, and Shirley Radack for their extensive and detailed review of 

the document; Marshall Abrams and Joseph Veoni of MITRE for providing insight into the use of the 

document for very large IT acquisitions; Harold Podell of the General Accounting Office for his 

assistance in clarifying the enterprise IT implications during IT acquisitions; and Alexis Feringa of Booz 

Allen Hamilton for her keen and insightful assistance throughout the development of the document. 

Any mention of commercial products or reference to commercial organizations is for information only; it 

does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST nor does it imply that the products mentioned 

are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

iii 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Including security early in the information system development life cycle (SDLC) will usually result in 

less expensive and more effective security than adding it to an operational system. This guide presents a 

framework for incorporating security into all phases of the SDLC process, from initiation to disposal. 

This document is a guide to help agencies select and acquire cost-effective security controls by explaining 

how to include information system security requirements in appropriate phases of the SDLC. 

A general SDLC is discussed in this guide that includes the following phases: initiation, 

acquisition/development, implementation, operations/maintenance, and disposition. Each of these five 

phases includes a minimum set of security steps needed to effectively incorporate security into a system

during its development. An organization will either use the general SDLC described in this document or 

will have developed a tailored SDLC that meets their specific needs. In either case, NIST recommends 

that organizations incorporate the associated IT security steps of this general SDLC into their 

development process: 

 Initiation Phase –

– Security Categorization – defines three levels (i.e., low, moderate, or high) of potential impact 

on organizations or individuals should there be a breach of security (a loss of confidentiality,

integrity, or availability). Security categorization standards assist organizations in making the 

appropriate selection of security controls for their information systems. 

– Preliminary Risk Assessment – results in an initial description of the basic security needs of the 

system. A preliminary risk assessment should define the threat environment in which the system

will operate. 

 Acquisition / Development Phase –

– Risk Assessment – analysis that identifies the protection requirements for the system through a 

formal risk assessment process. This analysis builds on the initial risk assessment performed 

during the Initiation phase, but will be more in-depth and specific. 

– Security Functional Requirements Analysis – analysis of requirements that may include the 

following components: (1) system security environment, (i.e., enterprise information security

policy and enterprise security architecture) and (2) security functional requirements 

– Security Assurance Requirements Analysis – analysis of requirements that address the 

developmental activities required and assurance evidence needed to produce the desired level of 

confidence that the information security will work correctly and effectively. The analysis, based 

on legal and functional security requirements, will be used as the basis for determining how much 

and what kinds of assurance are required. 

– Cost Considerations and Reporting – determines how much of the development cost can be 

attributed to information security over the life cycle of the system. These costs include hardware, 

software, personnel, and training 

– Security Planning – ensures that agreed upon security controls, planned or in place, are fully 

documented. The security plan also provides a complete characterization or description of the 

information system as well as attachments or references to key documents supporting the 

agency’s information security program (e.g., configuration management plan, contingency plan, 

incident response plan, security awareness and training plan, rules of behavior, risk assessment, 

iv 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

security test and evaluation results, system interconnection agreements, security

authorizations/accreditations, and plan of action and milestones). 

– Security Control Development – ensures that security controls described in the respective 

security plans are designed, developed, and implemented. For information systems currently in 

operation, the security plans for those systems may call for the development of additional security 

controls to supplement the controls already in place or the modification of selected controls that

are deemed to be less than effective. 

– Developmental Security Test and Evaluation – ensures that security controls developed for a 

new information system are working properly and are effective. Some types of security controls 

(primarily those controls of a non-technical nature) cannot be tested and evaluated until the 

information system is deployed—these controls are typically management and operational 

controls. 

– Other Planning Components – ensures that all necessary components of the development 

process are considered when incorporating security into the life cycle. These components include 

selection of the appropriate contract type, participation by all necessary functional groups within 

an organization, participation by the certifier and accreditor, and development and execution of 

necessary contracting plans and processes. 

 Implementation Phase –

– Inspection and Acceptance – ensures that the organization validates and verifies that the 

functionality described in the specification is included in the deliverables. 

– Security Control Integration – ensures that security controls are integrated at the operational 

site where the information system is to be deployed for operation. Security control settings and 

switches are enabled in accordance with vendor instructions and available security 

implementation guidance. 

– Security Certification – ensures that the controls are effectively implemented through 

established verification techniques and procedures and gives organization officials confidence 

that the appropriate safeguards and countermeasures are in place to protect the organization’s 

information system. Security certification also uncovers and describes the known vulnerabilities 

in the information system. 

– Security Accreditation – provides the necessary security authorization of an information system

to process, store, or transmit information that is required. This authorization is granted by a senior 

organization official and is based on the verified effectiveness of security controls to some agreed 

upon level of assurance and an identified residual risk to agency assets or operations. 

 Operations / Maintenance Phase –

– Configuration Management and Control – ensures adequate consideration of the potential 

security impacts due to specific changes to an information system or its surrounding environment. 

Configuration management and configuration control procedures are critical to establishing an

initial baseline of hardware, software, and firmware components for the information system and 

subsequently controlling and maintaining an accurate inventory of any changes to the system. 

– Continuous Monitoring – ensures that controls continue to be effective in their application 

through periodic testing and evaluation. Security control monitoring (i.e., verifying the continued 

effectiveness of those controls over time) and reporting the security status of the information 

v 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

system to appropriate agency officials is an essential activity of a comprehensive information 

security program.

 Disposition Phase – 

– Information Preservation – ensures that information is retained, as necessary, to conform to 

current legal requirements and to accommodate future technology changes that may render the 

retrieval method obsolete. 

– Media Sanitization– ensures that data is deleted, erased, and written over as necessary.

– Hardware and Software Disposal – ensures that hardware and software is disposed of as 

directed by the information system security officer. 

After discussing these phases and the information security steps in detail, the guide provides 

specifications, tasks, and clauses that can be used in an RFP to acquire information security features, 

procedures, and assurances. 

vi 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Authority......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose.......................................................................................................................1

1.3 Scope..........................................................................................................................1

1.4 Audience.....................................................................................................................2

2. INCORPORATING SECURITY INTO THE INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

LIFE CYCLE ........................................................................................................................3

2.1 Key Roles and Responsibilities for Development Initiatives .......................................3

2.1.1 Key Roles ........................................................................................................3

2.1.2 Other Participants............................................................................................4

2.2 Expressing Security Properties...................................................................................5

2.3 IT Security in the SDLC ..............................................................................................6

2.3.1 Initiation ...........................................................................................................8

2.3.2 Acquisition / Development.............................................................................10

2.3.3 Implementation..............................................................................................22

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................23

2.3.5 Disposition.....................................................................................................24

Appendix A— Federal Government Request for Proposals ............................................... A-1

Appendix B— Specifications, Clauses, and Tasks.............................................................. B-1

Appendix C— Glossary .......................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D— References ...................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E— Frequently Asked Questions......................................................................... E-1

vii 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Authority

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed this document in furtherance 

of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 

2002, Public Law 107-347. 

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

providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, but such standards and 

guidelines shall not apply to national security systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements 

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

Information Systems, as analyzed in A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental 

information is provided A-130, Appendix III. 

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

organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright though attribution is desired by NIST. 

Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict standards and guidelines made mandatory and 

binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority. Nor should these 

guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding the existing authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, 

Director of the OMB, or any other federal official. 

1.2 Purpose 

The need to provide protection for federal information systems has been present since computers were 

first used. Congress has passed several laws relevant to information system security, including the 

FISMA and the Information Technology Reform Act, also known as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The 

OMB develops executive agency policy on information system security in accordance with existing law 

and Executive order(s). Federal information system security policy is contained in OMB Circular A-130, 

Appendix III. OMB Circular A-130 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) require security 

specifications for information system acquisitions. To meet these policies and legal requirements, federal 

organizations must consider information system security in all phases of information system management, 

including the acquisition phase. 

Including information system security early in the acquisition process for an information system will 

usually result in less expensive and more effective security than adding security to an operational system. 

This guide presents a framework for incorporating security into all phases of the information system

development life cycle (SDLC) process, from initiation to disposal. 

1.3 Scope 

This document is a guideline to help agencies select and acquire cost-effective security controls by 

explaining how to include information system security requirements in the SDLC. This document 

supersedes NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-4, Computer Security Considerations in Federal 

Procurements: A Guide for Procurement Initiatiors, Contracting Officers, and Computer Security 

Officials, March 1992. This document is not a substitute for organization acquisition or security 

regulations, policy, and guidance. It should be used in conjunction with these and other NIST documents. 

For more information regarding the fundamentals of information system security, refer to NIST SP 800-

12, An Introduction to Computer Security: The NIST Handbook. 

1 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

This document has two parts. The first part, Section 2, explains the integration of information security

into the SDLC. Appendixes A and B contain resource material that can be used during the system

acquisition process. Appendix A provides the standard format for a Request for Proposals and Appendix 

B contains specifications and contract language for specific information security measures that can be 

included in information system acquisitions. 

NIST has prepared the following separate document to address information system security service 

issues: NIST SP 800-35, Guide to Information Technology Security Services. Performance based 

contracting has emerged, in many cases, as a preferred method of acquiring services. The following web 

site provides a comprehensive overview of the performance based contracting process: 

http://oamweb.osec.doc.gov/pbsc/index.html

The number and types of appropriate security controls may vary throughout a particular SDLC and 

acquisition cycle. The relative maturity of an organization’s security architecture may influence the types 

of appropriate security controls. The blend of security controls is tied to the mission of the organization 

and the role of the system within the organization as it supports that mission. One way to identify the 

ideal mix of management, operational, and technical security controls is with the risk management 

process. NIST has prepared the following document to address these issues: NIST SP 800-30, Risk 

Management Guide for Information Technology Systems. 

This document uses the following words interchangeably: offeror, developer, manufacturer, and 

contractor. Each of these words refers to a commercial entity that participates at various times throughout 

a system development. The applicability of each word depends on the phase of the SDLC and the type of 

system being developed. 

1.4 Audience 

This document is intended for the use of acquisition initiators (e.g., user, program manager, or contracting 

officer’s technical representative [COTR]), contracting officers, and information system security officials. 

2 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2. INCORPORATING SECURITY INTO THE INFORMATION SYSTEM 

DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE 

To be most effective, information security must be integrated into the SDLC from its inception. This 

guide focuses on the information security components of the SDLC. First, a description of the key

security roles and responsibilities that are needed in most information system developments is provided. 

Second, sufficient information about the SDLC is provided to allow a person who is unfamiliar with the 

SDLC process to understand the relationship between information security and the SDLC. 

However, this guide does not provide an exhaustive description of the development and acquisition 

processes. (See the FAR and organization-specific policies and procedures for detailed information 

system acquisition information). 

Many methods exist that can be used by an organization to effectively develop an information system. A 

traditional SDLC is called a linear sequential model. This model assumes that the system will be 

delivered near the end of its life cycle. Another SDLC method uses the prototyping model, which is often 

used to develop an understanding of system requirements without actually developing a final operational 

system. More complex systems require more iterative development models. More complex models have 

been developed and successfully used to address the evolving complexity of advanced and sometimeslarge information system designs. Examples of these more complex models are the: spiral model, 

component assembly model, and concurrent development model. 

The expected size and complexity of the system, development schedule, and length of a system’s life will 

affect the choice of which SDLC model to use. In most cases, the choice of SDLC will be defined by an 

organization’s acquisition policy.

This guide incorporates security into the SDLC using the linear sequential model as an example. Because 

this model is the simplest of the various models, it is an appropriate platform for this discussion. 

However, the concepts discussed in this section are applicable to any SDLC model. 

2.1 Key Roles and Responsibilities for Development Initiatives 

Many participants can have a role in information system developments depending on the nature and scope 

of the system. The names for the roles and titles will vary among organizations. Not every participant 

works on every activity within a phase. The determination of which participants need to be consulted in 

each phase is as unique to the organization as the development. With any development, it is important to 

involve the information security program manager and information system security officer (ISSO) as 

early as possible, preferably in the initiation phase. 

2.1.1 Key Roles 

A list of key roles is provided below. This list includes roles that are important to many information 

system acquisitions. In some small organizations, a single individual may hold multiple roles. 

 Chief Information Officer (CIO) – The CIO is responsible for the organization’s information 

system planning, budgeting, investment, performance and acquisition. As such, the CIO provides 

advice and assistance to senior organization personnel in acquiring the most efficient and effective 

information system to fit the organization’s enterprise architecture.

3 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

 Contracting Officer

1

 – The Contracting Officer is the person who has the authority to enter into, 

administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings 

 Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative – The COTR is a qualified employee appointed 

by the Contracting Officer to act as their technical representative in managing the technical aspects of 

a particular contract. 

 Information Technology Investment Board (or equivalent) – The Information Technology (IT) 

Investment Board, or its equivalent, is responsible for managing the capital planning and investment 

control process defined by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Section 5) 

 Information Security Program Manager – The Information Security Program Manager is 

responsible for developing enterprise standards for information security. This individual plays a 

leading role in introducing an appropriate, structured methodology to help identify, evaluate, and 

minimize information security risks to the organization. Information security program managers 

coordinate and perform system risk analyses, analyze risk mitigation alternatives, and build the 

business case for the acquisition of appropriate security solutions that help ensure mission 

accomplishment in the face of real-world threats. They also support senior management in ensuring 

that security management activities are conducted as required to meet the organization’s needs. 

 Information System Security Officer – The Information System Security Officer is responsible for 

ensuring the security of an information system throughout its life cycle. 

 Program Manager (owner of data)/Acquisition Initiator/Program Official – This person 

represents programmatic interests during the acquisition process. The program manager, who has 

been involved in strategic planning initiatives of the acquisition, plays an essential role in security and 

is, ideally, intimately aware of functional system requirements 

 Privacy Officer2

 – responsible for ensuring that the services or system being procured meet existing 

privacy policies regarding protection, dissemination (information sharing and exchange) and 

information disclosure. 

 Legal Advisor/Contract Attorney – responsible for advising the team on legal issues during the 

acquisition process. 

2.1.2 Other Participants 

The list of roles in an information system development can grow with the complexity involved in 

acquiring and managing information systems. It is vital that all development team members work together 

to ensure that a successful development is achieved. Because the system certifier and accreditor must 

make critical decisions throughout the development process, they should be included as early as possible 

in the process. System users may assist in the development by helping the program manager to determine 

the need, refine the requirements, and inspect and accept the delivered system. Participants may also 

include personnel who represent IT, configuration management, design and engineering, and facilities 

groups. 

 1

 Federal Acquisition Regulation Section 2.101 2 In some organizations, there may not be a formal designation of a privacy officer. However, the responsibilities of the 

privacy officer may be incorporated as part of another role in the organization.

4 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2.2 Expressing Security Properties 

Articulation of the desired system security properties is necessary to integrating security into the SDLC 

depends on. When an organization determines a system’s security properties, the security properties are 

referred to as “security requirements.” 

As explained below, the first phase in the SDLC is Initiation. During this phase, an organization 

determines its information security

requirements. Often, the requirements are 

developed by successive refinement. The 

articulation of requirements starts at a high 

level of abstraction, often centered on the 

security objectives for the system. The highlevel security requirements for the 

organization may include an information 

security policy and enterprise security

architecture. 

High-level requirements are the basis for 

more detailed functional requirements. 

Additional specificity is then added to the 

high-level security requirements. 

There are many ways to express high-level security requirements. One way to express these requirements 

is to use the concepts described in the Common Criteria for Information Technology Common Criteria 

Security Evaluation, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15408, known as the CC. The 

CC can provide a standard vocabulary and format for expressing the security requirements of a system. 

The specific document described in the CC to express security requirements for a product is the 

Protection Profile (PP)3

. Although the intent of the CC is to use the PP to express product security 

requirements, the same concepts can be extended to express system security requirements. This extension 

of the CC has shown promise for large system developments. The concepts of the CC are extended4

 in 

this document to provide an example of how system security requirements can be developed, but the CC 

is just one of many methods that can be used to develop and express security requirements and 

specifications. An organization should use a process for expressing security requirements that is useful for 

that organization. 

An enterprise security architecture is composed of a 

top-down set of identified trust modules that define 

network infrastructure domains and their 

countermeasures or mitigation. The prioritized risks 

for each of these levels enable the selection of the 

appropriate level of mitigation per module. 

Further, enterprise security architecture may 

implement layered protections and define common 

security services that can be implemented across a 

network, e.g., integrity (including nonrepudiation and

authenticity), confidentiality, and availability 

requirements. Common security services also include

access control and monitoring by intrusion detection 

systems and security information systems.

When an organization’s requirements are developed during the Acquisition/Development phase, the 

organization’s requirements regarding system performance are expressed as “specifications.” Because the

CC does not observe the subtle difference between specification and requirement, some modification is 

necessary.

Some large system developments use more sophisticated acquisition strategies on the assumption that 

large system acquisitions using classic linear strategies (as discussed in this document) have experienced 

 3

 The Common Criteria describes a protection profile as defining an implementation-independent set of security requirements and

objectives for a category of products or systems, which meet similar consumers, needs for information security. A protection 

profile is intended to be reusable and to define requirements, which are known to be useful and effective in meeting the 

identified objectives. 4

 Certain aspects of the CC may not be extensible to the system environment. For instance, independent evaluations of a PP are

not typically part of the acquisition process. 

5 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

unsatisfactory results. Strategies such as the spiral model5

 are sometimes used in response to this 

challenge. Depending on the organization’s needs, the security aspects of acquisition and system

development could also follow similar models, strategies, and processes. 

Because a SDLC can extend 20 years or more, different project personnel and supporting service 

providers will fulfill each role over the cycle. The security characteristics of the system will evolve over 

this system lifecycle, along with most other system characteristics. The system requirements 

documentation should be placed under configuration management as part of the total set of system

documentation that evolves over the lifecycle. 

2.3 IT Security in the SDLC 

This section describes a number of steps that will help integrate IT security into the SDLC. This section 

explains each IT security step in each phase of the SDLC with the technical and security requirements 

being advanced together. 

Table 2-1 shows how security fits into the SDLC. The security steps in this section describe analyses and 

processes to be accomplished. These steps define a conceptual framework for security planning during the 

SDLC. This framework should be used only as an example, not as a definitive methodology. The 

framework contains descriptions of a core set of planning considerations that will lead to the production 

of information security acquisition specifications. Organizations can use other methodologies or modify

the one presented here. It is also important to note that certain critical security activities may be 

specifically performed by the organization acquiring the information system. For instance, certification 

and accreditation (C&A) is an activity performed by the organization integrating the information system

into its operational environment. This activity can occur outside the bounds of the SDLC. In addition, an 

initial information security plan could be developed outside of the acquisition process. Other non-security

activities include acceptance testing and installation. 

The five basic phases of the SDLC as defined by NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans 

for Information Technology Systems are: 

 Initiation 

 Development/acquisition 

 Implementation 

 Operation/maintenance 

 Disposition6

. 

 5

 Abrams, Marshall D., “Security Engineering in an Evolutionary Acquisition Environment,” ACM, Proceedings of New 

Security Paradigms Workshop, 1998. 6

 In evolutionary acquisition strategies like the spiral model, this phase may not be present. With the spiral model, the life cycle

acquisition management process is organized into a series of phases and decision points. The circular representation of this 

process conveys the idea that a mission need is defined and translated into an advantageous solution, which goes through a 

continuous loop of evolution and improvement until it is retired. New products should have open architecture, modular 

design, standard interfaces, and portable software so they can evolve over time as additional capability is needed and when 

obsolete components must be replaced. 

6 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Table 2-1. IT Security in the SDLC

Initiation 

Acquisition / 

Development Implementation Operations / Maintenance Disposition 

SDLC 

- Needs 

Determination: 

• Perception of a 

Need 

• Linkage of Need 

to Mission and 

Performance 

Objectives 

• Assessment of 

Alternatives to 

Capital Assets 

• Preparing for 

investment 

review and 

budgeting 

- Functional Statement 

of Need 

- Market Research

- Feasibility Study 

- Requirements 

Analysis 

- Alternatives Analysis 

- Cost-Benefit Analysis 

- Software Conversion 

Study

- Cost Analysis 

- Risk Management7

Plan 

- Acquisition Planning 

- Installation 

- Inspection 

- Acceptance testing 

- Initial user training 

- Documentation 

- Performance 

measurement 

- Contract 

modifications 

- Operations 

- Maintenance 

- Appropriateness of 

disposal 

- Exchange and sale 

- Internal 

organization 

screening 

- Transfer and 

donation 

- Contract closeout 

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 

- Security

Categorization 

- Preliminary Risk 

Assessment 

- Risk Assessment 

- Security Functional 

Requirements 

Analysis 

- Security Assurance 

Requirements 

Analysis 

- Cost Considerations 

and Reporting 

- Security Planning 

- Security Control

Development 

- Developmental 

Security Test and 

Evaluation 

- Other Planning 

Components 

- Inspection and 

Acceptance 

- Security Control

Integration 

- Security

Certification 

- Security

Accreditation 

- Configuration 

Management 

and Control 

- Continuous 

Monitoring 

- Information 

Preservation 

- Media Sanitization

- Hardware and

Software Disposal 

 7

 Risk management in this context refers to risk associated with the development and not computer security or system technical 

risk. 

7 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Table 2-2 is intended to assist system developers to better understand the relationship between the 

acquisition cycle8

 and the five basic steps of the SDLC. A more detailed description of security planning 

of IT systems is presented in NIST SP 800-18. 

Table 2-2. Relationship of Acquisition and IT System Development Phases 

Acquisition Cycle Phases 

Mission and 

Business 

Planning

Acquisition 

Planning

Acquisition Contract Performance

Disposal and

Contract

Closeout 

Initiation Acquisition / Development Implementation Operation/

Maintenance Disposition 

SDLC Phases

The steps described in this guide present a conceptual framework for information security planning and 

should be used as a guide, an example, or a roadmap. Other ways to organize the steps needed in the 

information security planning process may be acceptable. Security requirements should be selected to 

address the security objectives defined as a result of the preliminary risk assessment. Therefore, a 

complete mapping of security requirements can be made to counter the numerous threats to security. 

2.3.1 Initiation 

The first phase in the SDLC is Initiation. This section addresses the needs determination component of 

this phase. 

2.3.1.1 Needs Determination 

Needs determination is an initial definition of a problem that might be solved through automation. 

Traditional components of the needs determination are establishing a basic system idea, preliminary

requirements definition, feasibility assessment, technology assessment, and some form of approval to 

further investigate the problem. 

The acquisition / development phase can begin only after an organization has determined that a need 

exists. A need may have been determined during strategic or tactical planning. The needs determination 

phase is at a very high level in terms of functionality. No specifics of a system are defined here. The idea 

for a new or substantially upgraded system and the feasibility of the idea are explored. During this early

phase of the development, the definition of the security requirement should begin with the security 

categorization and preliminary risk assessment. 

Needs determination is an analytical activity that evaluates the capacity of an organization’s assets to 

satisfy existing and emerging demands. The security part of needs determination will result in a high-level 

description of the security controls in the proposed system and the assurance requirements. This material 

will be used to support the derivation of a cost estimate that addresses the entire life cycle. Total life-cycle 

costs, including implementation costs and in-service management costs, should be estimated. There may

be a balance such that increased expenditures during acquisition may result in savings during system

operation. The security implications of alternative architectures and technologies should be considered. 

 8

 GSA publication, A Guide to Planning, Acquiring, and Managing Information Technology Systems, Version 1, December 

1998. 

8 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Some of the considerations associated with needs determination may be security and acquisition sensitive 

and must be safeguarded appropriately. For example, threat analysis and efficacy of countermeasures 

should be safeguarded. In addition, certain enterprise security architecture and process specifics for 

multinode architectures should be safeguarded. 

Investment analysis generates the information 

needed for determining the best overall solution 

for satisfying a mission need. Investment

analysis is defined as the process of managing the 

enterprise information system portfolio and 

determining an appropriate investment strategy. 

For example, an appropriate investment strategy

may be to optimize mission need within budget 

constraints. The intent of investment analysis is 

to not only define in functional and performance 

terms that the capability the agency must have to 

satisfy mission need, but also determine and 

baseline the best overall solution(s) and 

associated costs for achieving that capability.

Investment analysis is structured to translate 

mission need into high-level performance, 

assurance, and supportability requirements; 

conduct a thorough market analysis, alternatives 

analysis, and affordability assessment to 

determine the best solution for obtaining needed 

capability; and quantify the cost, schedule, 

performance, and benefit baselines for that 

solution. An investment analysis will help to 

define, in functional and performance terms, the 

capability that the agency must have to satisfy

mission need, to determine and baseline the best 

overall solution(s) for achieving that capability, and to provide corresponding cost information. 

Information security needs should address the appropriate level of assurance, because this is a significant 

cost driver. 

The system PP format can be used for presenting the

results of the needs determination and requirements 

analysis. As the system PP concept becomes more 

recognized throughout the security community, 

improved communication among stakeholders can 

occur because a more standardized approach is in use. 

In particular, communication of security

specifications to potential offerors can be greatly

enhanced. 

Further, a system PP acts as a record of the security 

analysis performed during this specification 

generation process. It provides a place to record the 

threats that are being considered, the security

objectives that are being pursued, and the actual 

security specifications as they are created. Therefore, 

a system PP should be viewed as an evolving

document that is not simply the “result” of the initial 

security analysis, but is the full record of the security 

analysis performed during the course of the 

specification generation process. Its creation is part

of the initial analysis and its completion is realized

when the full scope of the system is understood and 

specific security specifications are acknowledged. 

The completed security specification should be

included by reference in the system Request for 

Proposal (RFP) or applicable acquisition document 

and later used in the risk management activity 

performed as part of the security C&A. 

2.3.1.2 Security Categorization 

FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information 

Systems, provides a standardized approach for establishing security categories for an organization’s 

information and information systems. The security categories are based on the potential impact on an 

organization should certain events occur which jeopardize the information systems needed by the 

organization to accomplish its assigned mission, protect its assets, fulfill its legal responsibilities, 

maintain its day-to-day functions, and protect individuals. Security categories are to be used in 

conjunction with vulnerability and threat information in assessing the risk to an organization by operating 

an information system. FIPS Publication 199 defines three levels (i.e., low, moderate, or high) of potential 

impact on organizations or individuals should there be a breach of security (a loss of confidentiality,

integrity, or availability). The security categorization standards assist organizations in making the 

appropriate selection of security controls for their information systems. 

9 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2.3.1.3 Preliminary Risk Assessment 

The preliminary risk assessment should result in a brief initial description of the basic security needs of 

the system. In practice, the need for information security protection is expressed in terms of the need for 

integrity, availability, and confidentiality and other security needs that may be applicable (e.g., 

accountability, nonrepudiation). Integrity can be examined from several perspectives. From a user’s or 

application owner’s perspective, integrity is the quality of data that is based on attributes such as accuracy

and completeness. From a system’s or operation’s perspective, integrity is the quality of data that it is 

only changed in an authorized manner or that the system/software/process does what it is supposed to do 

and nothing more. Like integrity, availability also has a multipart definition. Availability is the state when 

data or a system is in the place needed by the user, at the time the user needs it, and in the form needed by

the user. Confidentiality is the privacy, secrecy, or nondisclosure of information except to authorized 

individuals. 

A preliminary risk assessment should define the threat environment in which the product or system will 

operate. This assessment is followed by an initial identification of required security controls that must be 

met to protect the product/system in the intended operational environment. The risk-based approach to 

information security is defined in NIST SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology 

Systems. A source for the derivation of required security controls is the forthcoming NIST SP 800-53, 

Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. This step does not require an elaborate 

assessment scheme. 

 

2.3.2 Acquisition / Development 

The second phase in the SDLC is Acquisition / Development. This section addresses one specific SDLC 

component (requirements analysis) and security considerations unique to this second phase. 

Although this section presents the information security components of the requirements analysis in a 

sequential top-down manner, the order of completion is not necessarily fixed. Any starting point that is 

appropriate for the acquisition can lead to successful completion. Security analysis of complex systems 

will need to be iterated until consistency and completeness is achieved. 

2.3.2.1 Requirements Analysis

Agencies establish and document requirements for information system resources in the Acquisition / 

Development phase by conducting a requirements analysis commensurate with the size and complexity of 

the need. The requirements analysis is an in-depth study of the need. The requirements analysis draws on 

and further develops the work performed during the Initiation phase. 

2.3.2.2 Risk Assessment 

The first step in analyzing the security functional requirements is to identify the protection requirements 

for the system through a formal risk assessment process. The analysis will build on the initial risk 

assessment performed during the Initiation phase, but will be more in-depth and specific. 

The periodic assessment of risk to agency assets or operations resulting from the operation of an

information system is an important activity required by FISMA. The risk assessment brings together 

important information for agency officials with regard to the protection of the information system and 

generates essential information required for the security plan. The risk assessment includes: (i) the 

identification of threats to and vulnerabilities in the information system; (ii) the potential impact or 

magnitude of harm that a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability would have on agency assets or 

10 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation) should there be a threat exploitation of 

identified vulnerabilities; and (iii) the identification and analysis of security controls for the information 

system. Agencies should consult NIST Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management Guide for 

Information Technology Systems, or other similar publications for guidance on conducting risk 

assessments. 

In addition to considering the security perspective of the system being acquired, organizations should also 

consider that the system might affect other systems to which it will be directly or indirectly connected. 

One way to incorporate the context is to have an enterprise security architecture. Without an enterprise 

perspective, the acquisition could be suboptimal, even to the extent of introducing vulnerabilities. If the 

enterprise context is not considered, there is a possibility that the system being acquired could 

compromise the other enterprise systems. The system being acquired may have a trust relationship with 

other enterprise systems, increasing the consequences of a compromise. 

Each enterprise system should address several enterprise-wide security objectives: 

 A specific enterprise system should not create vulnerabilities or unintended interdependencies in 

other enterprise systems. 

 A specific enterprise system should not decrease the availability of other enterprise systems. 

 The security posture of the set of all the enterprise systems should not be decreased because of this 

specific enterprise system.

 External domains not under enterprise control should be considered potentially hostile entities. The 

systems connected to such external domains must analyze and attempt to counter hostile actions 

originating from these domains. 

 Security specifications should be appropriate for the given state of the system environment. 

 Security specifications should be stated clearly to convey the desired functions and assurances to the 

enterprise system product team and the developers. 

 Implemented specifications should sufficiently reduce the risks to the enterprise system and to the 

enterprise mission that the system supports. 

The security risk assessment should be conducted before the approval of design specifications. In 

addition, a security risk assessment can provide justification for specifications. This risk assessment will 

not necessarily be a large and complex document. This security risk assessment should take into

consideration existing controls and their effectiveness. This security risk assessment will require 

participation by people who are knowledgeable in the disciplines within the system domain (e.g., users, 

technology experts, operations experts, etc.). 

The selection of appropriate types of safeguards or countermeasures should take into consideration the 

results of the security assurance requirements analysis. The security risk assessment, in turn, may identify 

deficiencies in the analysis of integrity, confidentiality, and availability requirements or the security 

assurance requirements analysis by demonstrating the logical conclusion of the analyses. The analysis 

should be iterated until consistency is achieved. 

11 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2.3.2.3 Security Functional Requirements Analysis 

The security functional requirements analysis may include the two sources of system security

requirements: (1) system security environment, (i.e., enterprise information security policy and enterprise 

security architecture) and (2) security functional requirements. 

This process should include an analysis of laws and regulations, such as the Privacy Act, FISMA, OMB 

circulars, agency enabling acts, NIST Special Publications and FIPS, and other legislation and federal 

regulations, which define baseline security requirements. After a review of mandated requirements, 

agencies should consider functional and other security requirements. 

The legal, functional, and other IT security requirements should be stated in specific terms. For complex 

systems, more than one iteration of the requirements analysis may be needed. 

Because most systems have at least minimal integrity and availability requirements, care should be taken 

to clearly address these areas. Information security is more than confidentiality. Even systems with low 

confidentiality requirements need security to meet integrity and availability requirements. 

2.3.2.4 Security Assurance Requirements Analysis 

The correct and effective use of information security controls is a fundamental building block of 

information security. Assurance is the grounds for confidence that an entity will meet its security 

objectives. Assurance supports the confidence that the security controls being acquired will operate 

correctly and will be effective in the operational environment. 

This analysis should address the developmental activities required and assurance evidence needed to 

produce the desired level of confidence that the information security will work correctly and effectively.

The analysis, based on legal and security functional requirements, will be used as the basis for 

determining how much and what kinds of assurance are required. As with other aspects of security, the 

goal should be cost-effective assurance that meets the requirements for protection of an organization’s 

information assets. In each situation, a balance should exist between the benefits to mission performance 

from system security and the risks associated with operation of the system. 

 

Some methods of obtaining information about a system’s quality through testing and evaluation include 

the following: 

 Common Criteria. The CC uses security requirements, such as the evaluation assurance levels

[EAL] to provide assurance based on an evaluation (active investigation) of the product or 

information system that is to be trusted. The assurance requirements can be found in Part 3 of the CC. 

The components prescribe specific developer action elements, content and presentation elements, and 

evaluator action elements. 

The National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) CC Evaluation and Validation Scheme

(CCEVS) assesses the security features and assurances of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products. 

The NIAP CCEVS uses a network of private sector, accredited testing laboratories called CC Testing 

Laboratories (CCTL) to independently evaluate a range of commercial products against the CC in a 

variety of key technology areas. These include operating systems, database systems, firewalls, smart 

cards, biometrics devices, routers, gateways, browsers, middleware, virtual private networks (VPN), 

and public key infrastructure (PKI) components. These products are evaluated against a set of security

requirements and specifications from the International Organization for Standardization/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 15408, Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation. 

12 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Member nations of the CC Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) have agreed to recognize the results of 

the evaluations performed in all member nations and to identify government-evaluated IT products 

and PPs on their respective validated products lists (VPL). The NIAP VPL can be accessed at: 

– http://niap.nist.gov 

– http://commoncriteria.org 

 Validation testing for Cryptographic Modules and Algorithms. The NIST Cryptographic Module 

Validation Program (CMVP) uses independent, accredited, private-sector laboratories that perform

conformance testing of cryptographic modules against Federal Information Processing Standard 

(FIPS) 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, and related federal cryptographic 

algorithm standards. NIST accredits these labs to ensure that the security standards are being applied 

correctly and consistently. In the case of cryptographic modules, when agencies have determined the 

need to protect information via cryptographic means they may only select CMVP validated 

cryptographic modules. 

 Third-Party Evaluations. Government agencies evaluate products for use in their environments. 

These evaluations may or may not be published and are normally not considered to be endorsements 

by the agencies. Trade and professional organizations are possible sources of independent 

evaluations. Commercial organizations may offer product assurance testing and evaluations. When 

using third-party evaluations, the independence and objectivity of the evaluation should be 

considered. Offerors should be asked to provide information about evaluations that they consider

pertinent to their proposal. 

 Accreditation of a System to Operate in a Similar Situation. These accreditations are not usually

published. It is important to ask offerors to supply the accreditation results. These, even more so than 

evaluations, are not usually endorsements. Accreditations are environment and system specific. 

Because accreditation balances risk against benefits, the same product may be accredited for one 

environment but not for another. 

 Test and Evaluation Following a Formal Procedure. A vendor self-certification does not rely on 

the work of an impartial or independent reviewer. It is a vendor’s technical evaluation of a system to 

see how well it meets an internally stated security requirement. Even though this method does not 

provide an impartial review, it can still provide some assurance. The certification report can be read 

to determine if the security requirement was defined and if a meaningful review was performed. 

 Test and Evaluation Under the Auspices and Review of an Independent Organization. This 

method may be able to combine the lower cost and greater speed of a self-certification with the 

impartiality of an independent review. The review, however, may not be as thorough as a formal 

evaluation or testing process. 

The concept of assurance is further described in NIST SP 800-23, Guidelines to Federal Organizations on 

Security Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Tested/Evaluated Products. 

2.3.2.5 Cost Considerations and Reporting 

Most new acquisitions are evaluated in a department or agency’s capital planning process—the systematic 

approach to managing the risks and returns of IT investments for a given mission. A key component of 

this process is determining how much the acquisition will cost over its life cycle. These costs include 

hardware, software, personnel, and training. Another critical area often overlooked is security. 

13 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

The task of identifying costs attributable to security can be complex. The best input for this task comes 

from the risk management process. As previously described, the first step, risk assessment, results in 

recommended controls that will mitigate the identified vulnerabilities. In the second step, risk mitigation, 

organizations conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the recommended controls to determine whether they are 

cost effective given the likelihood of an incident and the potential impact. Once the controls are selected, 

the cost of each can be totaled for an overall security cost.9

To ensure that adequate attention is paid to security, OMB has included it as a specific line item in several 

separate budget reports. The first report is Exhibit 300, the Capital Asset Plan. This report is described in 

OMB Circular A-11, Part 3, “Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets,” and is required for 

each new and ongoing major acquisition included in the agency’s capital asset portfolio. Information 

security is a key component in this document; indeed, an entire section is devoted to demonstrating that 

security and privacy have been adequately considered. Specific security dollar amounts for the budgeted 

fiscal year must be included with the Exhibit 300 submissions. Criteria for determining whether a project 

requires an Exhibit 300 submission are provided in the circular. 

Funding information is provided in the related Exhibit 53, “Agency Information Technology Investment 

Portfolio.” Information regarding security costs must be provided in this exhibit in the form of a 

percentage of the overall funding. 

Finally, the costs for security are aggregated into the agency’s annual FISMA report, which is submitted 

each fall with the budget submission. 

Including security at the beginning of the SDLC is often considered the most cost effective approach for 

two reasons: (1) it is usually more difficult to add functionality into a system after it has been built; and 

(2) it is frequently less expensive to include the preventive measures to deal with the cost of a security

incident. Further information about this topic can be found in OMB Memorandum 00-07, “Incorporating

and Funding Security in Information Systems Investments.”1011

2.3.2.6 Security Planning 

FISMA requires agencies to have plans for information security programs to assure adequate information 

security for networks, facilities, information systems, or groups of information systems, as appropriate. 

The preparation of a security plan for an information system ensures that required security controls 

(planned or in place) are fully documented. The security plan also provides a complete characterization or

description of the information system. Attachments may include references to key documents supporting 

the agency’s information security program (e.g., configuration management plan, contingency plan, 

incident response plan, security awareness and training plan, rules of behavior, risk assessment, security 

test and evaluation results, system interconnection agreements, security authorizations/accreditations, and 

plan of action and milestones12). Agencies should consult NIST Special Publication 800-18, Guide for 

Developing Security Plans Information Technology Systems, or other similar publications for guidance on

creating security plans. Agencies should also consult NIST Special Publication 800-53, Recommended

 9

 The cost of some security functionality will not be able to be determined as a discrete cost. These costs are the costs associated

with built-in security elements or features of an application or service, such as password functionality. In addition, many

applications or systems will rely upon the security provided by the network. 10 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-07.html 11 Additional information can be found at: http://csrc.nist.gov/roi/ 12 The results of security testing and evaluation may uncover deficiencies in the security controls employed to protect an

information system. A detailed plan of action and milestone schedule are required to document the planned corrective 

measures needed to increase the effectiveness of the security controls and provide the requisite security for the information 

system prior to security authorization. The authorizing official normally reviews and must approve the plan of action and 

milestone schedule prior to authorizing operation of the information system. 

14 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Security Controls for Federal Information Systems, (Initial public draft projected for publication, Fall 

2003), and similar publications for guidance on selecting security controls. 

2.3.2.7 Security Control Development 

For new information systems, the security controls described in the respective security plans are designed, 

developed, and implemented. The security plans for information systems currently in operation may call

for the development of additional security controls to supplement the controls already in place or the 

modification of selected controls that are deemed to be less than effective. 

2.3.2.8 Developmental Security Test and Evaluation 

The security controls developed for a new information system must be tested and evaluated prior to

deployment to ensure that the controls are working properly and are effective. Some types of security 

controls (primarily those controls of a non-technical nature) cannot be tested and evaluated until the 

information system is deployed—these are typically management and operation level controls. For those

security controls that can be assessed prior to deployment, a security test and evaluation plan is 

developed. This plan guides the developmental security testing and evaluation of the security controls and 

provides important feedback to information system developers and integrators. 

2.3.2.9 Other Planning Components 

Several other parts of the Acquisition / Development phase contribute to IT security. 

 Type of Contract 

The type of contract (for example, firm fixed price, time and materials, cost plus fixed fee, etc.) can 

have significant security implications. The IT security technical experts developing the specifications 

and the contracting officer should work together to select the contract type that will be most 

advantageous to the organization. 

 Review by Other Functional Groups 

Depending on the size and scope of the system, a team or group of participants from various 

functional groups (for example, legal, human resources, information security, physical security, etc.) 

may be useful. Even for small systems, it may be helpful to obtain assistance from the information 

security staff. These functional groups should have insight into the integrity, availability,

confidentiality and assurance requirements. Involving these groups early in the planning process is 

important because it may result in reduced life-cycle costs, and it is easier to change requirements in 

the early stages. The information security staff can – 

- Demonstrate that the security plan for the system includes security controls that are consistent

with the agency’s IT architecture 

- Ensure that the security plan manages risks, protects privacy and confidentiality, and explains 

variance from NIST security guidance. 

 Review by Certifier and Accreditor 

OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, requires that systems be approved, or authorized, to process data 

in specific environments. Management and operational security controls should be employed to 

protect the system. Additionally, the technical security functional and assurance security

15 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

specifications must be contained in the contract with the developer. These security controls should be 

factored into the development of the technical specifications. The accreditor can take these 

assumptions13 into account when deciding on the adequacy of the total set of security controls for 

reducing the residual risks to an acceptable level. 

The management and operational security controls can sometimes be outside the scope of the 

contract. In particular, the developer obviously cannot be responsible for the organization’s 

implementation of these security controls. 

In contrast, C&A testing also includes management and operational security controls implemented by

the organization. Determination of the efficacy of these organization-implemented security controls is 

part of C&A testing. C&A processes should confirm that the assumptions in the system security 

requirements have been implemented as assumed and that the total set of security controls are 

adequate to reduce the residual risks to an acceptable level. Acceptance testing of the security

properties of the contractor-developed system is a prerequisite to security testing as part of the C&A 

process. 

Because the accreditor is responsible for accepting the risk of operating the system, the accreditor can 

advise the development team if the risks associated with eventual operation of the system appear to be 

unacceptable. Specifications can impose excessive burden and costs if the acceptable residual risks 

are not known. The involvement of the accreditor is required for this determination of acceptable 

residual risks. It is easier to incorporate requirement changes during the planning stage of a system

acquisition than during the solicitation, source selection, or contract administration stages. 

The development team and the accreditor should also discuss the forms of evidence that the accreditor 

needs to make a decision. This evidence may include system test results and other data. In addition, 

the acquisition initiator and the accreditor should discuss how changes to the system and its 

environment would be addressed. The possibility of establishing a security working group should be 

discussed. Such a group may consist of personnel, such as users, program managers, and application 

sponsors; system, security, or database administrators; security officers or specialists, including the 

C&A representatives; and system or application analysts. Section 3.6, Contract Performance and 

Closeout, presents specifications for this group. 

For further information about C&A, see the forthcoming NIST SP 800-37, Guidelines for the Security 

Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems. 

 Cyclical Nature of the Process 

The security steps in the Acquisition / Development phase may need to be addressed cyclically. These 

steps interrelate and build on each other. Depending on the size and complexity of the system, these 

steps may be performed often as ideas are refined. 

 Evaluation and Acceptance

The system evaluation plan and appropriate acceptance criteria are developed in the Acquisition / 

Development phase. The solicitation should be designed for evaluation, which should include testing 

and analysis. Specifications should be written in a way to make it easy to clearly determine if the 

implemented system complies with the specification. In general, two separate activities require 

security testing – contract acceptance and C&A. 

 13 One advantage of using the system PP format is that a well-defined place exists for assumptions about the system environment, 

including such management and operational security controls. 

16 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Contract acceptance usually addresses only the functional and assurance security specifications 

contained in the contract with the developer. C&A testing also includes management and operational 

security controls implemented by the organization. The existence and correct operation of controls, 

which may be assumed by the developer, may have been included as assumptions in the system

security requirements. An adequate determination of the organization’s security controls as 

implemented is part of C&A testing. Acceptance testing of the security properties of the developed 

system is a prerequisite to security testing under the C&A process. 

 

 Request for Proposal Development 

An RFP enables the Government to make a best value decision based on an offeror’s proposal. A 

strength of the RFP process is the flexibility it provides the Government and offeror to negotiate a 

contract that best meets the Government’s needs. 

The Government can identify needed IT security features, procedures, and assurances in many ways. 

An RFP can be a flexible document. Guidance on acquisition alternatives should be obtained from the 

organization acquisition office or the contracting officer. 

 Security Specifications and Statement of Work Development 

Specifications and the SOW are based on the requirements analysis. The specifications provide detail 

of what the system is supposed to do. Specifications should also be written independently of the 

implementation mechanisms, strategy, and design. In other words, the specifications should state 

what the system is to do, not how. 

The security functional requirements in a system PP based on the CC are excellent examples of 

security specifications. The choice of words in the PP as “functional requirements” should not be 

confusing; for contracting purposes, these are actually specifications. 

The developer’s implementation of the system in conformance with the specifications can and should 

be tested. This implies that well written specifications are those that can be tested. 

The SOW details what the developer must do in the performance of the contract. Any deliverable that 

is not part of the system is specified in the SOW. Documentation developed under the contract, for 

example, is specified in the SOW. The security assurance requirements in a system PP based on the 

CC are excellent examples of SOW tasking. The security assurance requirements detail many aspects 

of processes the developer follows and what evidence must be provided to assure the organization 

that the processes have been conducted correctly and completely. The list of all deliverables that are 

not parts of the system is called the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). The specification of 

what a deliverable must contain is called the Data Item Description (DID). It is important that the 

security specifications in the SOW are instantiated in corresponding CDRLs and DIDs.14 

There is an exception to the general rule that security functional requirements map into security 

specifications. Selection of mechanisms to implement security functions may occur during the system

operation life cycle rather than during proposal preparation. Such decisions may be deferred to the 

system operational life cycle to respond to changes in technology or the security environment. For 

example, the authentication mechanism may change from memorized reusable password to token to 

biometric technique during the life cycle. The acquiring organization may deal with selection of 

mechanisms to implement security functions during the system operation life cycle by tasking the 

 14 The assurance requirements in the CC actually contain specifications that are suitable for incorporation in DIDs. These are 

titled “Content and presentation of evidence elements,”. 

17 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

developer in the SOW to perform a study and to recommend a mechanism or combination of 

mechanisms. The selection of the mechanism or combination of mechanisms remains the procuring 

organizations function. 

Where possible, the organization should support interoperability by specifying mechanisms that 

comply with open standards at an appropriate level. 

Experience has shown that if the specifications, SOW, CDRLs, and DIDs do not delineate the 

security properties of the system completely and unambiguously, then the system may not achieve the 

desired level of security. 

The following sections describe two sources for information security specifications: general 

specifications and federally mandated specifications. The acquisition initiator should focus on what is 

required and work with the contracting officer to determine the best way to ask for it. 

- General Specifications 

Many sources of general information security specifications are available and include NIST 

guidance documents and guidance from other federal agencies, commercial sources, and trade 

organizations. 

General information security specifications should be reviewed for applicability to the system

being procured. These specifications may provide information about overlooked areas. They can 

also save time because they provide language that can be used directly. However, care should be 

taken when selecting features, procedures, and assurances from these sources. The items may be 

grouped in these documents based on interdependencies among the items. It is necessary to 

understand the features, procedures, assurances, and groupings before specifying them separately. 

Each specification must be justified from the requirements analysis, specifically from the risk

assessment. Safeguards recommended by a general source should be considered, but they should 

not be included in an RFP if the risk assessment does not support them. 

- Federally Mandated Specifications 

Agencies must also include additional specifications in the RFP, as required by law. These are 

often referred to as directed specifications. All federal agencies must ensure that systems comply

with applicable FIPS publications. Agencies must also comply with OMB Circular A-130. 

Agencies may require directed specifications, which are official policies issued with the 

concurrence of organization’s legal and acquisition officials. 

Directed specifications must be incorporated in an RFP or other applicable acquisition document 

if the system being acquired matches the criteria in the directed specification. It is very important 

to be aware of directed specifications. 

It is the acquiring agency’s responsibility to incorporate applicable law, regulations, and policy in 

the RFP. In addition to mandates affecting the entire Executive Branch, each department and 

independent agency has its own set of directives, orders, and standards. 

Merely citing the requirements separately from technical specifications has proven to be 

inadequate. Leaving it up to the development contractor to interpret policy does not work. Rather, 

18 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

relevant policy and guidance should be interpreted or at least referenced in the technical security 

specifications. 

FIPS publications may be found at the NIST Computer Security Resource Center 

(http://csrc.nist.gov). Applicable OMB circulars, memorandums, and policy documents may be 

found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb. 

When a single product is being acquired, a PP may be cited in an RFP. However, when product 

integration is required, it is not sufficient to merely cite these PPs. Additional specifications are 

necessary to address the security properties of the integrated system.15

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law [P.L.] 104-113) 

directs federal government departments and agencies to use, when practical, technical industry 

standards that are developed in voluntary-consensus-based standards bodies.16

It is incumbent on the acquisition initiator to know what federally mandated specifications apply

to the system(s) being procured. Many people erroneously believe that the contracting officer is 

responsible for this effort. Because these are technical issues, the responsibility is that of the 

acquisition initiator. 

 Proposal Evaluation 

The proposal evaluation process determines if an offer meets the minimum requirements described in 

the RFP and assesses the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the prospective contract. This 

effort involves a technical analysis of the merits of a proposal. As part of the Acquisition / 

Development phase, the acquisition initiator, working with the contracting officer, develops an 

evaluation plan to determine the basis for the evaluation and how it will be conducted. The evaluation 

itself is performed during the Source Selection phase of the acquisition. Information security should 

be addressed in the evaluation criteria to call attention to the importance of security to the 

Government. Offerors study the RFP (particularly, RFP Sections L and M) to understand what the 

Government considers most important. 

 Developing an Evaluation Plan 

When evaluating information security features, it can be difficult to assess if the offer meets the 

minimum requirements or can successfully accomplish the prospective contract. Therefore, offerors 

should provide assurance to the Government that hardware and software claims regarding information 

security features are true and that the offeror can provide the proposed services. Because information 

security, like other aspects of computer systems, is a complex and important subject, the offeror’s 

assertions may not provide sufficient assurance. If the proposed products for use in the system have 

been evaluated under the NIAP or CC Recognition Arrangement, it will be easier to determine if the 

security features in an offeror’s product meet the requirements stated in the acquisition 

documentation. In addition, Section 3.4, Security Documentation, provides descriptions of 

documentation that can be used for assurance in the evaluation phase, such as the offeror’s strategy

for security. 

 15 In general, the organization will be acquiring integrated systems, and the citation of evaluated products conforming to single

product PPs is insufficient. System PPs can be used to express security requirements, if appropriate. 16 Information about voluntary industry standards is available from the National Standards Systems Network (NSSN). NSSN is a 

cooperative partnership between the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), U.S. private-sector standards 

organizations, government agencies, and international standards organizations (http://www.nssn.org)].

19 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

How assurances are provided may determine the Government’s ability to adequately assess them. The 

SOW specifies Government’s requirements on the development of the system, including the 

assurance requirements. Assurance specifications typically include documentation that will be 

examined by the Government. Such deliverables are identified by CDRLs. The form of the 

documentation is specified in a DID. After award, if the Government determines that more assurance 

is required, additional funding may be required to fully develop the system. 

The determination of how the offerors will be required to provide assurance should be considered 

when developing the evaluation plan. This plan will be used to help develop RFP sections that 

provide instructions to the offerors and information about how the proposals will be evaluated and 

how source selection will be performed. 

As part of this process, a determination of security acceptance testing should be made. It may be 

important to coordinate ST&E as part of acceptance as well as C&A to effectively manage the 

Government’s efforts. 

A certain amount of test and evaluation may occur as part of proposal evaluation. Benchmarking and 

functional demonstrations can be employed. Benchmarking has included stress testing (e.g., response 

time, throughput), which is similar to some security testing. Selecting the breadth and depth of such 

benchmarking is a business decision. Both the Government, as purchaser, and the offeror incur costs. 

Either party may decide that the costs are prohibitive. It may be possible to structure proposal 

evaluation to limit the number of proposals that receive intensive ST&E. For example, security

functional demonstrations could be required of all offerors, whereas assurance and penetration testing 

could be applied to only the apparent selectee. 

There are significant differences among ST&E of existing products, systems to be developed, and 

services. Organizations will have some uncertainty about the systems to be developed and services. 

One approach is to consider the failure to deliver the proposed security functions, assurances, and 

services as a breach of contract for which various legal remedies exist. The Government can structure 

the preaward functional demonstrations so that they provide meaningful and consistent results for 

evaluation purposes. 

 

It is important that the threats to security and organizational security policy commitments be clearly

articulated and that the proposed security measures be demonstrably sufficient for their intended 

purpose. Assurance should be based on an evaluation (active investigation) of the product or 

information system that is to be trusted. The validity of the documentation and of the resulting IT 

product or system should be measured by expert evaluators with increasing emphases on scope, 

depth, and rigor. 

Assurance specifications can be taken from the CC, or written in a style that conforms to the CC 

examples, and incorporated in the SOW. A well-written specification is one that can be evaluated. 

Architecture and design have a significant impact on vulnerabilities and testing. Good design includes 

testability as criteria. The cost of ST&E can be minimized by architecture and design that reduces the 

security impact of employing systems and services with unknown security properties, such as 

products that have not completed a CCEVS evaluation. Security architecture and design should 

employ techniques (e.g., encapsulation and isolation), and mechanisms (e.g., demilitarized zones and 

firewalls), to mitigate vulnerabilities and risks and the cost of ST&E. 

Security architecture that integrates countermeasures should be considered. These countermeasures 

include point solutions for individual networks (e.g., firewalls and intrusion detection systems [IDS]); 

20 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

security information management (SIM) systems; and (3) SIM integration with a secure network 

management (SNM) system. 

 Items to Consider in the Evaluation Plan 

The remainder of this section presents ideas to help develop the information security portions of the 

evaluation plan. One important aspect of the evaluation plan is selecting evaluation team members. 

Section 3.2.3, Source Selection, discusses some of the roles and duties of the evaluation team. 

When the evaluation plan is developed, the alternatives may conflict with each other. For example, 

features that provide information security can conflict with those that provide ease of use. The 

Government should clarify how offerors propose different configurations and present conflicting 

options and tradeoffs. However, care should be taken to keep the size of the proposal manageable to 

facilitate review and to minimize proposal preparation costs. 

Testing is one method of determining if the proposed system or product can meet the information 

security requirements. Depending on the nature of the system, testing can be part of the proposal 

evaluation, in the form of live test demonstrations or benchmarks, or it can be part of post-award 

acceptance testing. During the evaluation process, testing can be used at different times, depending on 

cost, technical, and acquisition integrity considerations. Expensive tests should be kept to a minimum

to help control offeror proposal preparation costs. Not only do expensive proposals limit competition, 

but also the costs are ultimately passed to the Government in higher contract costs. Guidance on 

testing alternatives should be obtained from the contracting officer. Use of products that have been 

evaluated under CMVP, NIAP or the CCRA may lessen the amount of security testing required for a 

particular proposal.17 

Information system testing, especially performance testing, should be performed with the information 

security features enabled. 

The more the acquisition initiator knows about the marketplace, the easier it is to develop an 

evaluation plan. However, proposals cannot be used for market research. The evaluation plan cannot 

be changed after the receipt of proposals. Additional information from other proposals cannot be used 

to modify the evaluation plan. It is worthwhile to investigate alternatives that could be offered to 

ensure the development of an evaluation scheme that reflects the true priorities of the Government. 

 Special Contract Requirements 

Some elements in an RFP are information security-related but are not contained in the SOW or the 

evaluation criteria. These elements usually address rights, responsibilities, and remedies assigned to 

the parties of the contract. Often, such obligations survive the actual period of performance (POP) of 

the contract. Therefore, such elements are best addressed through specific contract clauses or 

requirements. The requirement for nondisclosure of automated information obtained during the 

course of the contract is one example. 

Chapter 4 addresses clauses and SOW items. The acquisition initiator must coordinate with the 

contracting officer about clauses to be added to an RFP. 

 17 CC evaluations are typically accomplished at the individual product level in an intended environment. Deviation from the CC

test environment should be addressed through additional evaluations or testing. 

21 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2.3.3 Implementation 

Implementation is the third phase of the SDLC. During this phase, the system will be installed and 

evaluated in the operational environment of the organization. 

2.3.3.1 Inspection and Acceptance 

Inspection and acceptance refers to the Government’s decision to inspect and then accept and pay for a 

deliverable. The Government should take care when accepting deliverables. Testing by the Government 

or an independent validation and verification (IV&V) contractor to determine that the system does meet 

the specifications can be very useful. Testing should include the security of the system. 

[Note: Official Government acceptance and approval to authorize processing (accreditation) are related, 

but different concepts. The Government normally accepts a deliverable that meets the contract 

specifications. The approval to authorize processing is a separate decision made based on the risks and 

advantages of the system as installed in an operational environment. It is incorrect to have the approval to 

authorize processing as one of the acceptance criteria because many factors are beyond the vendor’s

control.]

2.3.3.2 Security Control Integration 

The integration of security controls occurs at the operational site where the information system is to be

deployed for operation. Integration and acceptance testing occurs after delivery and installation of the 

information system. Security control settings and switches are enabled in accordance with manufacturer

instructions and available security implementation guidance. 

2.3.3.3 Security Certification 

FISMA requires periodic testing and evaluation of the security controls in an information system to

ensure that the controls are effectively implemented. The comprehensive evaluation of security control 

effectiveness through established verification techniques and procedures (also known as security

certification) is a critical activity conducted by the agency or by an independent third party on behalf of

the agency to give agency officials confidence that the appropriate safeguards and countermeasures are in

place to protect the agency’s information system. In addition to security control effectiveness, security

certification also uncovers and describes the actual vulnerabilities in the information system. The 

determination of security control effectiveness and information system vulnerabilities provides essential

information to authorizing officials to facilitate credible, risk-based, security accreditation decisions. 

Agencies should consult NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Techniques and Procedures for Verifying 

the Effectiveness of Security Controls in Federal Information Systems, (Initial public draft projected for 

publication, Winter 2003-04), or other similar publications for guidance on the evaluation of security

controls. 

2.3.3.4 Security Accreditation 

OMB Circular A-130 requires the security authorization of an information system to process, store, or 

transmit information.18 This authorization (also known as security accreditation), granted by a senior 

agency official, is based on the verified effectiveness of security controls to some agreed upon level of 

assurance and an identified residual risk to agency assets or operations (including mission, functions, 

 18 Security authorization is typically only one factor that ultimately goes into the agency decision to place the information system 

into operation. All required functionality within the information system, (both security related and non-security related) 

must be installed and working properly before the final approval to operate is given by the agency’s authorizing official. 

22 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

image, or reputation). The security accreditation decision is a risk-based decision that depends heavily, 

but not exclusively, on the security testing and evaluation results produced during the security control 

verification process. An authorizing official relies primarily on: (i) the completed security plan; (ii) the 

security test and evaluation results; and (iii) the plan of action and milestones for reducing or eliminating 

information system vulnerabilities, in making the security accreditation decision on whether to authorize 

operation of the information system and to explicitly accept the residual risk to agency assets or 

operations. 

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance 

Operations and Maintenance is the fourth phase of the SDLC. In this phase, systems are in place and 

operating, enhancements and/or modifications to the system are developed and tested, and hardware 

and/or software is added or replaced. The system is monitored for continued performance in accordance 

with user requirements, and needed system modifications are incorporated. The operational system is 

periodically assessed to determine how the system can be made more efficient and effective. Operations 

continue as long as the system can be effectively adapted to respond to an organization’s needs. When 

modifications or changes are identified as necessary, the system may reenter another phase of the SDLC. 

Managing the configuration of the system and providing for a process of continuous monitoring are two 

key information security steps of this phase. 

2.3.4.1 Configuration Management and Control 

Information systems will typically be in a constant state of migration with upgrades to hardware, 

software, or firmware and possible modifications to the surrounding environment of the system. Changes 

to an information system can have a significant impact on the security of the system. Documenting 

information system changes and assessing the potential impact on the security of the system on an

ongoing basis is an essential aspect of maintaining the security accreditation. An effective agency

configuration management and control policy and associated procedures are essential to ensure adequate 

consideration of the potential security impacts due to specific changes to an information system or its

surrounding environment. Configuration management and configuration control procedures are critical to 

establishing an initial baseline of hardware, software, and firmware components for the information

system and subsequently controlling and maintaining an accurate inventory of any changes to the system. 

2.3.4.2 Continuous Monitoring

FISMA requires periodic and continuous testing and evaluation of the security controls in an information

system to ensure that the controls are effective in their application. Security control monitoring (i.e., 

verifying the continued effectiveness of those controls over time) and reporting the security status of the 

information system to appropriate agency officials are essential activities of a comprehensive information 

security program. The ongoing monitoring of security control effectiveness can be accomplished in a 

variety of ways including security reviews, self-assessments, security testing and evaluation, or audits. 

Agencies should consult NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Techniques and Procedures for Verifying 

the Effectiveness of Security Controls in Federal Information Systems, (Initial public draft) or other

similar publications19 for guidance on the ongoing monitoring of security controls. 

 19 For example, NIST SP 800-40, Procedures for Handling Security Patches and NIST SP 800-42, Guideline on Network Security

Testing.

23 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2.3.5 Disposition 

Disposition, the final phase in the SDLC, provides for disposal and contract closeout of the system or 

contract in place. In general, more than one contract may have existed over the life of the system. For 

example, the acquiring organization may have chosen to operate and maintain the system using its own 

personnel, or it may have used another contract. Similarly, disposal may involve a unique contract. 

Information security issues associated with disposal and contract closeout should be addressed explicitly.

When information systems are transferred, obsolete, or no longer usable, it is important to ensure that 

government resources and assets are protected. 

Usually, there is no definitive end to an SDLC. Systems evolve or transition to the next generation as a 

result of changing requirements or improvements in technology. Security plans should continually evolve 

with the system. Much of the environmental, management, and operational information should still be 

relevant and useful in developing the security plan for the follow-on system. 

The disposition activities ensure the orderly termination of the system and preserve the vital information 

about the system so that some or all of the information may be reactivated in the future if necessary.

Particular emphasis is given to proper preservation of the data processed by the system, so that the data is 

effectively migrated to another system or archived in accordance with applicable records management 

regulations and policies, for potential future access. 

Generally, a system owner should archive critical information, sanitize the media that stored the 

information, and then dispose of the hardware/software. 

2.3.5.1 Information Preservation 

When preserving information, organizations should consider the methods that will be required for 

retrieving information in the future. The technology used to retrieve the records may not be readily

available in the future. Legal requirements for records retention should also be considered when disposing 

of systems. 

2.3.5.2 Media Sanitization 

Protection of information system hardware usually requires that residual magnetic or electrical

representation of data be deleted, erased, or written over and that any system components with nonvolatile 

memory are erased. This residual information may allow data to be reconstructed, providing access to 

sensitive information by unauthorized individuals. The removal of information from a storage medium is 

called sanitization. Different kinds of sanitization provide various levels of protection. 

A distinction can be made between clearing information and purging information. Clearing information 

is removal of sensitive data from a storage device at the end of a processing period in such a way that 

there is assurance, proportional to the sensitivity of the data, that the data may not be reconstructed using 

normal system capabilities. 

Purging is the removal of data from a storage device at the end of a processing period in such a way that 

there is assurance, proportional to the sensitivity of the data, and that the data may not be reconstructed 

except through open-ended laboratory techniques. Several commercially available software utilities are 

available to clear and purge information from an information system so that it cannot be later 

reconstructed except by very sophisticated and expensive laboratory techniques. 

24 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Degaussing, overwriting, and media destruction are some of the methods for purging information. 

Degaussing is a process for erasing the magnetic media. Overwriting is a process for writing nonsensitive 

data in storage locations previously containing sensitive data. The following processes may destroy 

media: 

 Destruction at an approved metal destruction facility (e.g., smelting, disintegration, or pulverization) 

 Incineration 

 Application of an abrasive substance to a magnetic disk. 

2.3.5.3 Hardware and Software Disposal 

Hardware and software can be sold, given away, or discarded as provided by applicable law or regulation. 

The disposition of software should comply with license or other agreements with the developer and with 

government regulations. There is rarely a need to destroy hardware, except for some storage media that 

contains sensitive information and that cannot be sanitized without destruction. In situations in which the 

storage media cannot be sanitized appropriately, removal and physical destruction of the media may be 

possible so that the remaining hardware may be sold or given away. Some systems may contain sensitive 

information after the storage media is removed. If there is doubt whether sensitive information remains on 

a system, the ISSO should be consulted before disposing of the system. 

25 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Appendix A—Federal Government Request for Proposals 

Table A-1. Uniform Contract Format for Federal Government Requests for Proposals 

RFP Section Contents Created by Technical and/or 

Acquisition Comments

A. Solicitation/Contract Form Cover Sheet for RFP (SF 33 or SF 1443). 

Request for Quotations, use SF 18. If SF not 

used, details of issuing activity, 

proposal/quotation general information, and 

space for offeror/quoter information. 

Acquisition contains standard RFP 

information. 

B. Supplies or Services and 

Prices/Costs 

List of Products/Services To Be Provided by

Offeror. 

Acquisition developed from other 

portions of RFP. Contains standard 

RFP information. 

C. Description/Specifications/ 

Work Statement 

Defines Scope of Contract and 

Requirements, Including Mandatory

Specifications, Optional Features Services. 

Specification may be included as an 

Attachment/Section J. 

Acquisition and Technical. Describes 

product or services to be produced. 

D. Packaging and Marking Shipping, Handling, and Storage 

Requirements. May Not Be Required for 

Service Contracts. 

Acquisition and Technical. Standard 

RFP information with special technical 

requirements if necessary. 

E. Inspection and Acceptance Standards of Performance, Reliability

Requirements, Acceptance, Benchmarks, 

Inspection, and Quality Assurance. 

Acquisition and Technical. 

Determines how product or service is 

to be accepted and must perform. 

Contains standard RFP information 

with specific technical requirements. 

F. Deliveries or Performance Time, Place, and Method of 

Deliverables/Performance. Describes, for 

example, Liquidated Damages, Equipment 

Replacement, Field Modifications, 

Alternations, Maintenance Response Time 

and Downtime, Credits, Product 

Replacement, Variation in Quantity, Delivery 

and Installation Schedule, and Stop Work 

Orders. 

Acquisition and Technical. Contains 

standard RFP information with special 

technical requirements. 

G. Contract Administration 

Data 

Contract Administration, Such as Authorities 

of Government Personnel, Required Reports, 

Holidays, Use of Government Property, and 

Financial Information. 

Acquisition and usually Technical. 

Normally standard RFP information 

with special technical requirements. 

H. Special Contract 

Requirements 

Clauses Other Than Those Required By

Law/Regulations, Including Warranties, 

Replacement Parts, Engineering Changes 

Recording Devices, Hardware/Software 

Monitors, Site Preparation, Financial 

Reporting, Transition Requirements, Handling 

of Data, and Security. 

Acquisition and Technical. Normally

standard RFP information with special 

technical requirements. 

I. Contract Clauses Clauses Required By Law/Regulations Not 

Otherwise Required for a Particular Section. 

Acquisition. Contains standard RFP 

information. 

J. List of Attachments Any Additional Acquisition and Technical 

Information for Offeror. 

Acquisition and Technical. 

K. Representations, 

Certifications, and Other 

Statements of Offerors 

All Statements Required of the Offeror by

Law/ Regulation/Organization. Offeror Must 

Complete and Return with Proposal. 

Acquisition. Standard RFP 

information. 

A-1 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

RFP Section Contents Created by Technical and/or 

Acquisition Comments

L. Instructions, Conditions, 

and Notices to Offerors or 

quoters 

Requirements for Proposals. Specifies the 

Plans, Approaches, References, and Other 

Information the Offeror Must Submit. 

Proposal Instruction. Requires offerors to tell 

how they will/can meet the requirements 

described in Section C. 

Acquisition and Technical. Addresses 

how offeror should respond to SOW

as set out in the evaluation criteria. 

M. Evaluation Factors for 

Award

Describes how proposals will be evaluated 

and the criteria against which proposal will be

evaluated. Also describes how a source will 

be selected. 

Acquisition and Technical. 

For further information, see FAR 15.406. 

A-2 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Appendix B—Specifications, Clauses, and Tasks 

This section provides specifications, tasks, and clauses that can be used in an RFP or SOW20 to acquire 

information security features, procedures, and assurances.21,22 These specifications, tasks, or clauses are 

not mandatory, but are intended as a source of general specifications, as defined in Section 3.2.2. They are 

written for different types of acquisitions, including the purchase of COTS products, purchase of 

integrated systems, development of applications, and other computer-related services. 

This guide does not provide an exhaustive description of every possible specification, task, or clause. 

Organizations should use the examples in this appendix as a baseline in developing unique acquisition 

language to meet the specific requirements of the development. 

The specifications, tasks, and clauses are divided into 10 categories. Within each category, there may be 

specifications, tasks, and/or clauses as well as explanations, considerations, and/or prescriptions about 

their use. The specifications, tasks, and clauses are printed in italics. Explanations, considerations, and 

prescriptions are in Times New Roman typeface. These specifications, tasks, or clauses should be used 

carefully and should be tailored to meet individual circumstances. The categories are as follows: 

1. General Information Security

2. Control of Hardware and Software 

3. Control of Information and Data 

4. Security Documentation 

5. Legal Issues 

6. Contract Performance and Closeout 

7. Information Security Training and Awareness 

8. Personnel Security

9. Physical Security

10. Information Security Features in Systems.

The categories above do not address the tasking language for specific security services, such as having a 

risk assessment performed or having contractors prepare security-planning documents. The tasking 

language for these types of services is provided in the NIST SP 800-35, Guide to Information Technology 

Security Services. 

 20 In performance-based contracting, the organization’s SOW is replaced by the statement of objectives (SOO). The SOO 

defines what the procuring organization wants to procure but not how to achieve this goal. The provider’s response will be

in the form of an SOW. The language in this section can be used as a guide by an organization in evaluating a provider’s 

response. 21 A word of caution on the use of subcontractors: ensure applicable computer security requirements and/or certifications 

placed on prime contractors are also reflected in subcontracts. This is called “flowdown.” 

22 The benefits of specifying compliance to an existing protection profile are that the individual security requirements need not 

be detailed in the RFP. 

B-1
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

B.1 General Information Security

In keeping with OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, security responsibility for a system must be 

assigned. This item should be included to clarify responsibility. If the contract calls for information 

security administration, management, or support, the delineation of responsibilities should be clear, with a 

government employee retaining ultimate information security program responsibility. OMB Circular A76, 23 Performance of Commercial Activities, provides additional detail regarding what positions are 

inherently governmental and should or should not be outsourced. 

The person responsible for information security for the system is <name>. 

The following shows the relationship between organization ownership of information system resources 

and contractor use. These clauses help establish clear lines of authority and responsibility.

The Government authorizes the use of <organization> computer resources (list specific 

resources if appropriate) for contractor performance of the effort required by the statement of 

work of this contract. 

The contractor shall comply with the requirements of the organization information security 

program as defined by (insert organization handbook, directives, manuals, etc.). 

B.2 Control of Hardware and Software 

The Government should consider who can introduce hardware and software onto the system and under 

what circumstances. 

Introduction and Change of Software. To reduce the chance of viruses and other forms of malicious 

code, illegal use of licensed software, and software that may open security vulnerabilities (such as 

operating system utilities or untested software updates), organizations should consider restricting 

contractors by using the following types of specifications and tasks. These specifications and tasks could 

be used when the contractor is providing a service, such as running or maintaining a government 

computer system. 

Only licensed software and in-house developed and authorized code (including government and 

contractor developed) shall be used on <system name(s)>. Public domain, shareware, or 

freeware software shall only be installed after prior written approval is obtained from the 

contracting officer or COTR. 

The previous specification is fairly restrictive. The alternatives that follow can be used to modify the 

specification. 

The only hardware and software that shall be used on <system name(s)> is <listed here or 

specify section>. The contracting officer or COTR must approve all additional hardware and 

software proposed for use, including upgrades, in advance and in writing. 

Alternatives:

1. The contractor shall provide a list of software and hardware changes _______ 

working days in advance of installing (or other time or performance period). 

 23 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a076.html 

B-2
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

2. The contractor shall provide test environment analysis for proposed hardware and 

software and state the security vulnerabilities that were addressed (include other 

assessment items required) _____ working days in advance of installing. 

3. The contractor shall provide proposed hardware and software for testing ______ 

working days in advance of loading. 

4. The contractor shall provide proof of license for new software. 

5. The contractor shall maintain a list of hardware, firmware, and software changes 

throughout the contract. The contractor shall provide this list to the Government 

(specify time frame and/or at the end of the contract). 

If the contractor is using its own software, then the following specification can be used to help protect the 

Government from buying products developed with stolen software. 

The contractor shall provide proof of license for all software used to perform under this contract. 

The following clauses are reprinted from FAR 52.239-1, Privacy or Security Safeguards. 

FAR 39.106, Contract Clause, prescribes that these clauses, or variations of them, be used in solicitations 

and contracts requiring security of IT systems or for the design, development, or operation of records 

using commercial IT services or support services. Clause (a), which addresses ownership of and rights to 

developed software, should be coordinated with the contracting officer or legal counsel. 

(a) The contractor shall not publish or disclose in any manner, without the contracting 

officer’s written consent, the details of any safeguards either designed or developed by the 

contractor under this contract or otherwise provided by the Government. 

(b) To the extent required to carry out a program of inspection to safeguard against threats 

and hazards to the security, integrity, and confidentiality of government data, the contractor shall 

afford the Government access to the contractor’s facilities, installation, technical capabilities, 

operations, documentation, records, and databases. 

(c) If new or unanticipated threats or hazards are discovered by either the Government or 

the contractor, or if existing safeguards have ceased to function, the discoverer shall immediately 

bring the situation to the attention of the other party. 

One option to modify these clauses is to add a task related to clause (c): 

The contractor shall provide an analysis of the new threat, hazard, or vulnerability and 

recommend possible fixes or safeguards. 

The following two clauses address other issues in the use of government hardware and software by a 

contractor providing services. The Government should include all restrictions such as single site 

licensing, proper use to maintain warranties, proprietary code, or special considerations. 

Under no circumstances is a contractor permitted to make any use of organization computer 

equipment or supplies for purposes other than performance on this contract. 

B-3
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

The following items of government-furnished equipment or software have the following licensing 

or use restrictions: <provide list>. 

The special needs to protect desktop and portable computers should be addressed. Desktop and portable 

IT security options include security hardware and software, locks, removable hard drives, and antivirus 

software. Consider if these are needed when desktop computers are acquired or if contractors will be 

using desktop computers. 

The contractor shall not allow its employees to access files that contain employee’s passwords. 

Consider configuring multi-user systems with a warning message. Pre-logon warning messages can deter 

unauthorized use, increase IT security awareness, and provide a legal basis for prosecuting unauthorized 

access. Warning messages can also be used on contractor systems processing federal information. 

The system(s) shall be delivered and installed with the following message appearing before 

logon: 

(or) 

Contractor multi-user systems used to process data under this contract shall use the following 

pre-logon warning message: 

The Department of Justice manual, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence 

in Criminal Investigations, describes six considerations when developing a pre-logon warning banner: 

 Does the banner state that use of the network constitutes consent to monitoring? 

 Does the banner state that use of the network constitutes consent to the retrieval and disclosure of 

information stored on the network? 

 In the case of a government network, does the banner state that a network user shall have no 

reasonable expectation of privacy in the network? 

 In the case of a nongovernment network, does the banner make clear that the network system

administrator(s) may consent to a law enforcement search?

 Does the banner contain express or implied limitations or authorizations relating to the purpose of 

any monitoring, who may conduct the monitoring, and what will be done with the fruits of any

monitoring? 

 Does the banner require users to “click through” or otherwise acknowledge the banner before using 

the network? 

B-4
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

One example24 of a banner is provided: 

 

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING** 

This is a <organization> computer system. <Organization> computer systems are provided for the 

processing of Official U.S. Government information only. All data contained on <organization> 

computer systems is owned by the <organization> may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, read, 

copied, or captured in any manner and disclosed in any manner, by authorized personnel. THERE IS NO 

RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN THIS SYSTEM. System personnel may give to law enforcement officials any 

potential evidence of crime found on <organization> computer systems. USE OF THIS SYSTEM BY ANY 

USER, AUTHORIZED OR UNAUTHORIZED, CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO THIS MONITORING, 

INTERCEPTION, RECORDING, READING, COPYING, OR CAPTURING and DISCLOSURE. 

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING** 

Another requirement is that the contractor should provide continuity of support and information system

contingency plans for government general support systems and major applications, or for contractor 

systems that process government data. The following statement addresses continuity of support for a 

mission-essential network, but it can be tailored for other types of systems. To use this clause, the offerors 

must have sufficient information to be able to postulate the types of emergencies that could occur. It may

be necessary to provide additional detailed specifications about these needs to give offerors and 

evaluators enough information to prepare and review cost estimates and to make objective evaluations. 

Add to Section C: 

After contract award, the contractor shall deliver a draft continuity of support plan for the system 

being acquired for organization approval within 90 days of receiving the organization approval 

and/or guidance on the preliminary plan. The final continuity of support plan shall be delivered 

90 days after receiving organization approval and/or guidance on the draft plan. The plan shall 

be reviewed periodically and updated annually by the Contractor to ensure the accuracy and 

timeliness of the contents. Recommended updates and revision based on this review shall be 

submitted to the organization for approval _____ working days prior to incorporation in the 

plan. 

Summary: 

•

•

•

 

Preliminary plan submitted with proposal 

Draft plan submitted ____working days after organization comment on preliminary plan 

Final plan submitted ____ working days after organization comment on draft plan. 

The continuity of support plan shall detail the taking of appropriate and timely action to protect 

system assets from damage or misappropriation in the event of the threat of a disaster or 

emergency. The emphasis shall be on avoiding or mitigating the damage caused by such things as 

fire, flood, or terrorist activity <modify to include threats to the system>. The plan shall, at a 

minimum -- 

24 NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems, provides examples of pre-logon 

warning banners.

B-5
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

• Include a risk assessment 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Include a business impact assessment 

Identify essential functions or critical processes, components, and the relationship of critical 

workload to variables, such as time to recovery 

Identify activities that can be suspended temporarily 

Identify alternate procedures 

Identity action(s) to be taken to mitigate threats. 

The continuity of support plan shall detail the taking of appropriate and timely action to return 

assets to use after damage, destruction, alteration, or misappropriation. The system recovery 

portion of the plan shall include at a minimum - 

Basic strategy for recovery

Specifications for restoration procedures by component and subsystem priority 

Testing procedures during redundant operations 

Specific responsibilities for incident response. 

The continuity of support plan shall state how the plan shall be tested and how often the tests 

shall be done. Annual testing is required as a minimum, and some tests should be done without 

advance notice. 

As part of continuity of support and contingency planning, organizations should consider how long the 

system could remain operable. 

In the event the system or any component is rendered permanently inoperative, the contractor 

shall deliver a replacement within <time frame> from the date of request. 

In the event the system or any component is unavailable for use as a result of maintenance or

repair or other reasons for a period of more than <time frame>, or in the event that it is 

reasonably anticipated that maintenance will exceed <time frame>, the contractor shall make a 

loaner or replacement available within <time frame>. 

If an alternate site is required for system recovery, and/or the contractor maintains the alternate site, the 

contractor shall provide – 

Technical specifications of alternate site 

Technical specifications of alternate equipment 

Telecommunications requirements 

Risk assessment of alternate site. 

B-6
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

In the event recovery of the system at the alternate site is required, the contractor shall make 

available the alternate site within <timeframe>, for at least <minimum timeframe> and at most

<maximum timeframe>. 

System recovery should be tested at the alternate site at least annually. A physical security risk 

assessment should be conducted at least annually to ensure that the facility meets technical and 

security requirements. 

Add to RFP Section L: 

As part of the proposal, the offeror shall submit a preliminary continuity of support plan to 

address the planned reaction to threatened or actual emergencies. Provisions for testing the plan, 

at the option of the organization, must be included in the proposal.

The offeror shall describe how the proposed architecture, technical capabilities, and 

organization will protect the system during emergency situations. The plan should state what 

priority the organization will have in terms of services, replacement hardware, use of alternate 

site, etc. Examples of how these resources will be used during an emergency are required. 

The offeror shall describe external emergency management interface arrangements that will be 

used with subcontractors if necessary. 

The organization is concerned that service may be degraded in a network environment in which 

systems and network components are shared with others. If the offeror proposes such a shared 

environment, the offeror must address the following issues: 

•

•

•

 

Protection of access for critical organization users 

Protection of network access ports from saturation caused by other traffic that may be using 

the same network access ports 

Provision of alternative access and facilities for critical users during periods of overload. 

B.3 Control of Information and Data 

Contractors may be required to work with information or data that the organization has designated as 

subject to nondisclosure. Clauses should be used to prevent the contractor from disclosing the information 

during the course of the contract and after it has terminated. It is important to work with the contracting 

officer to ensure that nondisclosure is adequately addressed for both situations.25

Any <list type of or all> information made available in any format shall be used only for 

carrying out the provisions of this contract. Information contained in such material shall not be 

divulged or made known in any manner to any person except as may be necessary in the 

performance of this contract. Disclosure to anyone other than an authorized officer or employee 

of the contractor shall require written approval of the contracting officer (or contracting officer’s 

technical representative [COTR]). 

25 The following contract clauses may be tailored to be applicable during the course of the contract and after it has terminated. 

B-7
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Any <list type of> information shall be accounted for upon receipt and properly stored before, 

during and after processing. In addition, all related output shall be given the same level of 

protection as required for the source material. 

If it is necessary to disclose <type of> information to perform under the contract, the contractor 

shall request written authorization from the contracting officer (or COTR) to make such 

necessary disclosure. 

Except as provided elsewhere in this contract, the contractor shall not disclose <type of 

information> except to the individual specified in this contract. 

•

•

•

Only those disclosures specifically authorized in writing by the contracting officer (or 

COTR) may be made, and only when it is clearly shown by the contractor that such 

disclosures are essential to successfully perform under this contract. 

Should the contractor or one of their employees make any unauthorized disclosure(s) of 

confidential information, the terms of the Default clause (FAR 52.249-8), incorporated 

herein by reference, may be invoked, and the contractor will be considered to be in breach of 

this contract. 

If nondisclosable information is released to prospective offerors to enable them to prepare proposals, the 

following clause can be used during the release of information. 

I hereby certify that I will not disclose (type of information) unless authorized in writing by the 

contracting officer. I agree that, whether or not a contract is awarded to me, I will keep all 

information in confidence. 

The following item can be used to prevent nondisclosable information from leaving the organization’s 

control such as through storage on a hard drive that is sent out for maintenance. 

The contractor shall ensure that <list type of> information shall not be released outside the 

control of the organization <or specific organization office>, including release for maintenance 

or replacement purposes, without the written consent of the contracting officer or COTR. 

B.4 Security Documentation 

Security documentation provides instructions for users about the use of the system’s security features. 

Security documentation also supports a demonstration of meeting the requirement. The items below are 

divided into proposal and deliverable documentation. Documentation that shows that a requirement has 

been understood will be received as part of the proposal and will be used to evaluate the offeror. 

Instructional documentation will be received as a deliverable after contract award. Documentation, such 

as test reports that show that the contractor has successfully met the security requirement will normally be 

received as a deliverable after contract award. 

Different types of documents can be required depending on the nature of the acquisition. For example, an 

approach, abstract, or outline of security features in the system User’s Guide can be included in the 

proposal with the final version as a deliverable. In the proposal phase, the document would be used to 

evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the security requirement and ability to meet the requirement. As a 

deliverable, the document would become instructional documentation. The documentation that is 

B-8
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

requested with the proposal should be used to evaluate the offer, but should not constitute a requirement 

that the offeror prepare deliverables before award. 

Component-level documentation may not be sufficient to adequately document a system. System-level 

documentation should describe the system security requirement and how it has been implemented. In 

addition, the operating system, application, and security system documentation should be combined with 

descriptions of the interrelationships among applications, operating system and utilities in its operational 

environment to form a complete system-level description. Component documentation will generally be 

off-the-shelf from the component vendor. The contractor will prepare specific system documentation 

during systems development. In addition, component security targets for CC-evaluated products can be 

used as essential documentation for evaluated IT security components. Published CC Protection Profiles 

may also be used to provide technical specifications for system components or may be adapted to provide 

system-level specifications. 

It may be necessary to provide additional detailed specifications, including content and delivery schedule, 

to give offerors and evaluators enough information to prepare and review cost estimates and to make 

objective evaluations. 

B.4.1 Proposal Documentation 

B.4.1.1 Offeror’s Strategy for Security 

This strategy should be commensurate with the size and complexity of the system. All systems 

acquisitions should request some form of offeror security strategy. In this strategy, the offeror should state 

how the product or service would meet the Government’s security needs. Offerors of COTS products 

should match the features of the packages to government specifications and address assurance. For 

complex system development efforts, this might include a plan for incorporating and assuring security

throughout the development. An example of a clause requesting such a plan follows. 

The offeror shall provide a plan that describes its IT security program. The plan shall address the 

security measures and program safeguards, which will be provided to ensure that all information 

systems and resources acquired and utilized in the performance of the contract by contractor and 

subcontractor personnel: 

• Operate effectively and accurately 

•

•

•

•

•

Are protected from unauthorized alteration, disclosure, or misuse of information processed, 

stored, or transmitted 

Can maintain the continuity of IT support for organization missions, programs, and function 

Incorporate management, operational, and technical controls sufficient to provide costeffective assurance of the system’s integrity and accuracy 

Have appropriate technical, personnel, administrative, environmental, and access 

safeguards 

Notify offeree of any and all vulnerabilities found. 

This plan will be included in any resulting contract for contractor compliance. 

B-9
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Note: In system acquisitions in which multiple CC-evaluated products are planned, but not 

currently available (or evaluated), it may be appropriate to require the offeror to establish a CC

Management Plan, to ensure the availability of CC-evaluated products in the delivered system.26

B.4.1.2 Offeror’s Internal Security Policy and Plan 

Acquisitions that include contract services can ask for this type of assurance document. Depending on the 

scope of the acquisition, this may include copies of the offeror’s applicable information security, 

personnel security, and physical security policies. 

B.4.2 Deliverable Documentation 

B.4.2.1 Test Documentation 

This documentation is a report that describes the test plan, the test procedures showing how the security

features and controls were tested, and the results of the security features and controls of functional testing. 

B.4.2.2 Design Documentation 

This documentation is a report that describes the offeror’s philosophy of security controls and explains 

how these controls are designed into the system. This report can be the post-contract award counterpart of 

the offeror’s strategy for security; it describes how the strategy was implemented in the system design. 

The report can also include an informal or formal description of a security policy model and an 

explanation of how the system enforces the security policy. For systems requiring very high security

assurance, formal description languages and mathematical modeling also may be included. 

B.5 Legal Issues 

The contracting officer and legal department should be consulted about legal issues. This section 

addresses some issues that the acquisition initiator may want to discuss with organization acquisition and 

legal staff. 

 Security Violations – It is possible for computer products to cause security violations, even if the 

products are functioning correctly. For example, a product containing malicious code (i.e., virus or 

Trojan horse), bypassing operating system controls, or containing undocumented backdoors that 

bypass security could cause these security violations. Some manufacturers include backdoors so they

can assist customers. 

 Allocation of Contractual Risk and Responsibility – The FAR contains general clauses that define 

the respective responsibilities and allocate risks among the parties to a government contract. 

However, additional clauses may be needed to fully address specific information security

requirements. Such clauses, for example, may address guarantees, warranties, or liquidated damages. 

The specific wording of such clauses may vary from one solicitation to another because they are a 

function of the particular need for data integrity, confidentiality, or availability and the nature of the 

system being protected. 

 26 NIST SP 800-23, Guideline to Federal Organizations on Security Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Tested/Evaluated 

Products, describes the concept of assurance and a number of different methods and alternatives of obtaining assurance. 

Products should be acquired and used appropriate to their risk environment and the cost-effective selection of security

measures. When selecting products, the threat/risk environment, cost-effectiveness, assurance level, and security functional 

specifications should be considered, as appropriate. 

B-10
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Agencies may wish to consider the use of warranties, liquidated damages, and other clauses in

establishing the contractor’s information security-related responsibilities in contracts. Such clauses, 

when properly crafted, will provide incentive to the contractor to ensure that its products and services 

meet the security requirements of the contract. Such clauses, when poorly drafted or overly broad, can 

unnecessarily increase contract costs, limit competition, complicate contract administration, and 

increase litigation risk. These clauses must be prepared in conjunction with existing FAR clauses. 

- Warranties provide a means to require the contractor to fix products after they have been 

accepted. A warranty is an agreement by the contractor that it will be liable for meeting the 

contract specifications for a stated period of time after acceptance. (See FAR 46.7 and 52.246-17 

through 20.) 

- Liquidated damages provide a means for the contractor to compensate the Government for losses 

that result from contract delays or other problems. The purpose of liquidated damages clauses and 

other clauses fixing the contractor’s performance responsibilities in the information security area 

is to provide incentive for the contractor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the product does 

only what it is intended to do and nothing more. For example, the product should be free from

malicious code. If the product results in poor security, the contractor can be required to pay for

damages. Because the goal is to acquire secure systems, the extent of the liquidated damages 

clause (or other such clause) should be commensurate with the anticipated risks and damage to 

the Government. A specific maximum dollar value can be placed on the damages, or other means 

can be used to limit the contractor’s liability. (See FAR 11.5.) 

[Note: These are not penalties. If a security violation occurs, but does not result in any loss, the 

contractor should not be responsible for any liability or liquidated damage.]

The following are examples of integrity statements that may be modified to form a warranty,

guarantee, or liquidated damage clause. The examples are not intended to be used together and should 

be modified for the operating environment. There are no examples of customized enforcement clauses 

(the specific warranty, guarantee, or liquidated damage) because they must be developed with the 

contracting officer and legal counsel. (FAR 52.246-17 through 20 contain FAR standard warranties.) 

- The subject product performs in accordance with all specifications, certifications, and 

representations reflected in the documentation provided in Addendum 1 except as reflected 

below: 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

 

- The installation instructions provided with the subject product, if properly followed, shall result 

in the creation and modification of only those objects listed below: 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

B-11
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

____________________________________________ 

- The subject product (hardware or software) shall not interact with any other component 

(hardware, software, or firmware) of the system onto which it is being installed to perform any

function not described in the documentation listed below: 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

 

- The instructions provided for removing the subject product from any system onto which it has

been properly installed, shall, if properly followed, release back to the system every object used 

to store the subject product on the system. 

- Other than the exceptions listed below, the subject product contains no undocumented functions 

and no undocumented methods for gaining access to this software or to the computer system on 

which it is installed. This includes, but is not limited to, master access keys, back doors, or 

trapdoors. 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

 

- The subject product does not interfere or bypass the system security software [[insert name(s) of 

security software]. The program code performs only request validation checking and enforces the 

action that the system security software indicates should be taken. This processing is performed 

for all users. Any exceptions are listed below: 

___________________________________________ 

___________________________________________ 

___________________________________________ 

___________________________________________ 

 Flaw remediation – Flaw remediation is the process of tracking and correcting security flaws by the 

contractor. 

- The contractor shall document the flaw remediation procedures. 

B-12
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

- The contractor shall establish a procedure for accepting and acting upon reports of security flaws 

and requests for corrections to those flaws. 

- The flaw remediation procedures documentation shall describe the procedures used to track all 

reported security flaws in each release of the system. 

- The flaw remediation procedures shall require that a description of the nature and effect of each 

security flaw be provided, as well as the status of finding a correction to that flaw. 

- The flaw remediation procedures shall require that corrective actions be identified for each of the 

security flaws. 

- The flaw remediation procedures documentation shall describe the methods used to provide flaw 

information, corrections, and guidance on corrective actions to the Government. 

 

- The procedures for processing reported security flaws shall ensure that any reported flaws are 

corrected and the correction issued to the Government. 

 

Caution is required on the sequence of external reporting of security flaws before the corrections 

are tested. Potential attackers should not be informed of uncorrected security flaws. 

- The procedures for processing reported security flaws shall provide safeguards that any

corrections to these security flaws do not introduce any new flaws. 

 Government Patents and Ownership – Government patents and ownership of developed software 

and systems are another important consideration that should be discussed with the contracting officer 

and legal staff and clearly delineated in RFP and contract text. 

B.6 Contract Performance and Closeout 

For complex contracts that include the development, implementation, or operation of a computer facility

or application, a review group that has security experts can be used effectively to help maintain

information security. The group can be composed of a combination of government and contractor 

personnel. Depending on the operational environment, the group can be used for the following:

 Information exchange 

 Configuration management

 C&A issues 

 Analysis of security requirements 

 Identification of new threats and vulnerabilities 

 Identification of changes to the system that affect security

 Recommendation of solutions to security problems as they occur 

 Recommendation of tradeoffs between security and other functional requirements. 

 Physical and electronic access policy for contractors 

B-13
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

 Escrow of source code to purchaser. 

The following examples define a security working group used to support an operational system. 

The contractor shall provide <number and type of> personnel for a security control/review 

group. This group will address security problems, help provide for the maintenance of 

certification or accreditation under the control of <government person responsible for 

information security of system>, report security problems, and make security recommendations. 

The contractor can be made responsible for the administration and support of the group. 

The contractor shall schedule meetings <time frame>, arrange for (or provide) a room, and 

record minutes. These minutes will be submitted to the COTR within <time frame> after the 

meeting. The meetings shall be held <time frame> commencing <time frame> after contract 

award and continue throughout the period of performance (or other ending time). 

One issue to be resolved in contract closeout is the return or destruction of government data and 

information. Because information can be easily copied, the return of originals does not fully address the 

destruction of the information. This issue only needs to be addressed when the Government is processing 

information on a contractor facility or computer. Be sure that official organization records or information 

are not destroyed before a copy of the information has been received by the organization (if needed). 

The contractor certifies that the data processed during the performance of this contract shall be 

purged from all data storage components of its computer facility, and the contractor will retain 

no output after such time as the contract is completed. If immediate purging of all data storage 

components is not possible, the contractor certifies that any organization data remaining in any 

storage component will be safeguarded to prevent unauthorized disclosures. (Insert schedule.)

Government-furnished equipment (GFE), including hardware and software, should be returned in 

accordance with normal procedures. Special information security considerations include the return of the 

GFE in usable condition. This is especially important if a system continues to operate under the 

Government’s or another contractor’s control. The information security can be transferred by having 

passwords reset by the Government or by having the contractor turn in the passwords. The delineation of 

security responsibilities during transition should be addressed. No specific language is provided because 

of the diversity and individuality of systems. 

Returned software shall be certified to be in its original form. 

Another item to be considered is the contractor’s computer accounts on government-owned systems. 

Accounts no longer needed by the contractor should be terminated to protect government resources (i.e., 

computer time) and to prevent malicious activity by unauthorized users. 

When a contractor employee no longer requires access to the system (if the employee leaves the 

company or the contract), the contractor shall notify the COTR within <time frame>. At contract 

completion or termination, the contractor shall provide a status list of all users and shall note if 

any users still require access to the system to perform work under another contract. Any group 

accounts or other means of gaining access to the system also shall be listed, including 

maintenance accounts and security bypasses. 

If a contractor employee is fired or leaves the contract or company under adverse conditions, the 

contractor shall notify the COTR before the employee is removed. If the removal is unplanned,

B-14
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

the contractor shall notify the COTR immediately after dismissing the employee. This action will 

allow the Government to terminate his/her access. 

When an employee leaves at contract closeout, it is sometimes important to dispose of computer files and 

accounts. Often, only the person who created or used the files has sufficient knowledge to dispose of 

them. If the contractor will be handling official organization records, it is important that disposition be 

made in accordance with organization records management instructions. 

When an employee leaves the contract, the contractor project manager shall ensure that all files 

are disposed of by transfer to another user, archive, destruction, etc. The contractor project 

manager shall report (or certify) disposition in (time frame such as in a monthly report or within 

<time frame> of the employee leaving). 

B.7 Information Security Training and Awareness 

An important goal of the FISMA is to assure that all personnel involved in the management, use, and 

operation of federal systems trained in information security awareness and accepted information security

practices. OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, specifically requires federal agencies to provide for the 

mandatory periodic training in information security awareness and accepted information security practice 

for all employees who are involved with the management, use, or operation of a federal computer system

within or under the supervision of the federal agency. This effort includes contractors and employees of 

the organization. 

The following can be used in the cases where the organization determines that NIST SP 800-50, Building 

an Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Program, adequately addresses the security

training requirement for the contractor. This guidance can be tailored to include specific additional skills, 

training levels, or audience categories depending on the organization’s requirements. A time frame should 

be specified for when the contractor personnel must have received the training. The use of training 

certifications should be discussed with the contracting officer. 

The contractor shall, at a minimum, certify that all contractor personnel involved in the 

management, use, and operation of (name of) system(s) who perform work under the subject 

effort shall have received training appropriate to their assignment as defined in NIST SP 800-50, 

Building an Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Program. 

Each contractor employee proposed for the effort shall be identified. The contractor shall certify 

each as having received IT security training, as defined in NIST SP 800-50, “Building an 

Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Program.” 

Additional or refresher training shall be performed within <time period>. Certification of this

training shall be provided to the contracting officer no later than <time period> after the 

training has occurred. 

The following are examples of tailoring the training specification. 

In addition, all contractor personnel involved in the administration of the access control package 

shall have received training on the package equivalent to <amount> hours of classroom 

instruction or <amount> hours of job experience using the package. 

B-15
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

The contractor system security personnel shall have received training in the operations of the 

system that includes a systemic overview, security features, known vulnerabilities and threats, 

and security evaluation methodologies. 

The following can be used when the acquisition organization has specific training minimums that are 

available to the prospective offerors. The second paragraph may be added as an Instruction to Offerors. 

The contractor shall, at a minimum, certify that any personnel who perform work under the 

subject effort shall have received security awareness and skills training that is equivalent to that 

received by government personnel at <location>. 

It is the responsibility of the prospective offeror to obtain the organization guidelines for this 

training prior to the submission of a proposal under this solicitation at <address and point of 

contact>. (Alternate: The organization guidelines can be included as an attachment to the RFP.) 

B.8 Personnel Security

Requiring personnel screening of contractor or subcontractor employees as a condition for physical or 

computer systems access is a recommended safeguard. Each position should be reviewed and designated 

a level of risk. The level of risk should have a type of screening appropriate to the personnel who are 

required to perform each position. Personnel screening includes implementations ranging from minimal 

checks to complete background investigations. The extent of screening is dependent on program or 

system criticality and function, information sensitivity, system exposure, and the implementation of other 

management, operational, and technical controls. 

The following considerations are important for all contracts: 

 Types of informational access requirements that exist under the contract 

 Types of screenings required for each type of access 

 Review of the screenings before access is granted 

 Personnel that will review the screening to determine access privileges 

 Responsibility for paying for screenings 

 Timing of submission of names and supporting information 

 Types of screening (from other government agencies) that can be substituted 

 Methods for reported on or certified screening results to the contracting officer. 

Different personnel screenings could also be required for different types or levels of access. There are 

many kinds of screenings. The list below includes forms of possible screenings27: 

 Review of employment forms completed by the contractor employee 

 Personal reference check 

 27 This document does not address personnel security requirements for classified access to information. However, reviewing 

guidance relating to classified access can assist the reader in understanding unique circumstances that may require additional 

personnel security measures. Two of these documents include: Executive Order 12968, “Access to Classified Information,” 

August 2, 1995 and Executive Order 12958, “Classified National Security Information,” April 17, 1995. 

B-16
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

 Credit check 

 Verification of employment for the last 2 years before current employment 

 Verification of education (degree obtained, accreditation status, date of degree, etc) 

 Local police check in present county and state 

 Background check by private organization 

 Government background investigation.

Access to the Government’s resources is a privilege that should be revoked if a contractor employee 

becomes a threat to the system. 

The Government may remove access privileges for contractor personnel for unauthorized, negligent, 

or inappropriate and willful actions. These may include the following: 

- Unauthorized use of the system

- Introduction of malicious software 

- Unauthorized modification or disclosure of the system or data 

- Unauthorized sharing or disclosure of passwords 

In addition to background screenings, personnel security methods, such as employee statements regarding 

conflict of interest, may be used. Conflict of interest may include acquisition integrity certifications, 

financial disclosure, or reports on outside activity. Be sure to specify what is required, when the form(s) 

must be completed, and what access decision(s) are based on the form. 

If the organization has a computer systems user agreement that states user information security 

responsibilities (such as safeguarding passwords), it is appropriate to require that contractor personnel 

sign the agreement before computer systems access is granted. The following clause can be modified to 

be more stringent (such as organization receipt of agreement before access is granted). 

The contractor shall insure that all contractor personnel sign the user agreement prior to having 

access to organization systems. 

 Care must be taken when addressing contractor personnel. The Government cannot engage in 

personal services contracts unless specifically authorized by statute (see OMB Circular A-76). 

Personal services contracts are those in which the Government has an employer-employee 

relationship with contractor staff. See Part 37 of the FAR, “Service Contracting.” Requiring

contractor personnel to be screened as a condition for employment under the contract might suggest 

an employer-employee relationship. However, requiring screening of contractors as a condition for 

access to government resources is different. It does not imply an employer-employee relationship 

because the Government is responsible for retaining control of its resources. Although the distinction 

above may seem minor, it can be essential during a contract. It is important that the distinction be 

understood to avoid personal services contracts while protecting government resources. 

B-17
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

B.9 Physical Security

The following types of clauses can be used for contracts when work will be performed at the contractor 

location. 

Physical security for computer systems can help prevent theft, tampering, and destruction. 

The contractor shall provide physical security for <list components or systems> other than those 

in organization-controlled space and for information being transmitted across <list networks>. 

Physical security measures to be implemented include protecting the following: 

- Location (e.g., access to hardware, software, and data) 

- Hardware 

- Software and data.

The contractor shall identify <name of system or components> equipment that will be in 

nonorganization-controlled areas. Methods for physically protecting these systems shall be 

provided by the Contractor. The protection shall be against damage, unauthorized access, 

alteration, modification, and destruction, whether by act of nature, accident, or intrusion. 

Information security can be integrated into existing organization clauses for preaward site surveys instead 

of using this clause, where applicable. 

When it is determined that a preaward site survey is necessary in order to verify that the security 

of a facility is adequate, the contracting officer shall notify the offeror that such a survey will be

necessary and coordinate with the offeror as necessary. No contract for services or supplies will 

be awarded until the survey is completed. The recommendations of the <office performing 

survey>, as appropriate, will be a significant factor in the determination of responsibility. 

B.10 Information Security Features in Systems 

Information security features in systems28 refer to specific functions that can be incorporated into or those 

integral to the information system. How security features are used in any given information system or 

network is dependent on a variety of factors, including the operating environment, the sensitivity of the 

data processed or transmitted by the system, the requirements for availability, and other risk factors. This 

section addresses several security controls that could be considered during the Acquisition Planning and 

Acquisition phases of the acquisition life cycle. This list is not exhaustive because there are many

different controls that can be applied to a system to achieve the desired level of security. Some of these 

additional security controls are described in SP 800-27, Engineering Principles for Information 

Technology Security (A Baseline For Achieving Security). SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls 

for Federal Information Systems, will establish a set of standardized, minimum-security controls for 

information systems addressing low, moderate, and high levels of concern for confidentiality, integrity,

and availability. 

 28 The term “system” is used loosely to mean any collection of components, hardware, software, firmware, and processes. The 

use of a more specific term is recommended. Terms such as “the offeror’s solution” for integration efforts, “the product” for a

component buy, “application system,” “operating system,” or specific references to parts of the system architecture (e.g., “trusted

computing base”) are a few examples.

B-18
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

For many systems, a combination of features will be used, some of which are incorporated in the 

operating system and application. For example, additional access controls are commonly incorporated at 

the application level. File access may still be performed by the operating system. Many different security

architectures are possible. Security features should work together in the system environment and the 

documentation and testing should address the coordinated approach for the security architecture that is 

selected. 

The features described in this section are a combination of basic security controls and some advanced 

controls. The controls should be described in functional specifications. Individual tailoring to specific 

environments will probably be required. If the purpose of the acquisition is to acquire off-the-shelf 

products, market surveys should be performed (in accordance with organization policy) to determine what 

features are available in the commercial market. Modifying security features of off-the-shelf products can 

be expensive. For more information on specific products related to each security feature below, refer to 

the NIST SP 800-36, Guide to Selecting Information Technology Security Products. 

Additional information about the uses of these features can be obtained from NIST, commercial standards 

bodies, and organization security officials. The NIST Computer Security Resource Center 

(http://csrc.nist.gov) catalogues the NIST information security publications that provide additional 

information about some of these security features. Technical terms and concepts used in this section are 

explained in the glossary, Appendix C. 

B.10.1 Identification and Authentication 

Identification and authentication (I&A) are basic building blocks of security features in systems. For 

many systems, every user-initiated activity within the computer system (e.g., accessing or printing a file, 

sending a message) should be attributable to a system user. The identification is normally performed 

when the user logs on to the system. User authentication has been typically performed by the use of 

passwords; however, system planners and security officials should seek to incorporate the strongest 

practical authentication technologies commensurate with system risks. To enforce accountability and 

access control, all users must identify and authenticate themselves to the system. 

The system shall: 

Include a mechanism to require users to uniquely identify themselves to the system before 

beginning to perform any other actions that the system is expected to mediate 

•

•

•

•

•

Be able to maintain authentication data that includes information for verifying the claimed 

identity of individual users (e.g., passwords) 

Protect authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any unauthorized user 

Be able to enforce individual accountability by providing the capability to uniquely identify 

each individual computer system user 

Raise alarms when attempts are made to guess the authentication data either inadvertently 

or deliberately). 

The type of user authentication mechanism may need to be specified. These authentication mechanisms

can be based on three categories of information: something the user knows, such as a password; 

something the user possesses, such as a token; and some physical characteristic (biometric) of the user, 

such as a fingerprint. Authentication methods employing a token or biometric can provide a significantly

B-19
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

higher level of security than passwords alone. Multi-factor authentication mechanisms, such as those 

involving tokens and biometric data are considered strong authentication mechanisms and considered to 

be advanced authentication technologies. In addition, cryptography plays a key role in advanced 

authentication technologies to provide strong user authentication mechanisms (like tokens), server 

authentication (using digital certificates), and data authentication (using digital signatures). NIST SP 800-

25, Federal Agency Use of Public Key Technology for Digital Signatures and Authentication, provides 

additional detail about the use of public key technology for advanced authentication. 

B.10.2 Access Control 

Access control ensures that all access to resources is authorized where necessary. Access control protects 

confidentiality and integrity and supports the principles of legitimate use, least privilege, and separation 

of duty. Access control measures for computer systems focus on assurances that sufficient management, 

operational, and technical controls are implemented to protect sensitive data and system or network 

components commensurate with risk. Access control simplifies the task of maintaining enterprise network 

security by reducing the number of paths that attackers might use to penetrate system or network 

defenses. 

Access control systems grant access to information system resources to authorized users, programs, 

processes, or other systems. Access control can be enforced solely by the application, by the operating 

system, or by a combination of both. 

Access control mechanisms can be user-centric (based on credentials or access rights associated with a 

user) or resource centric (based on access control lists that detail the access rights of various users on a 

particular information resource). In addition to associating access rights with a user (based on the user’s

identity), access rights can also be associated with roles (as in role-based access control [RBAC]), groups, 

or any other appropriate attribute associated with users. 

 

RBAC has emerged as a promising feature of many database management, security management, and 

network operating system products. RBAC products allow system administrators to assign individual 

users into roles. The role identifies users as members of a specific group, based on their capabilities, work 

requirements, and responsibilities in the organization. Access rights, or security privileges, are then 

established for each role; a user may have multiple roles, which provide an appropriate level of access for 

their requirements. Thus, the RBAC structure empowers administrators with a tool to regulate which 

users are given access to certain data or resources, without limiting them to the “all or nothing” tradition 

of an access control list. 

Access control enforcement based on access rights (also called permissions or privileges) associated with 

a user/role/group is called Discretionary Access Control (DAC). In addition, there are systems that could 

enforce access control based on labels (Mandatory Access Control [MAC]) associated with a user (called 

clearance levels) and resources (called sensitivity levels). The required access control data for DAC and 

MAC types of enforcement should be based on a defined organization access control policy. 

Organizations can help protect their data by controlling who can use an application, database record, or 

file. Particular attention should be paid to controlling who is allowed to enable or disable the security

features or to change user privileges. 

Users should ensure that secure applications sufficiently manage access to the data that they maintain. 

The access control process includes any or all of the following: knowing who is attempting access, 

mediating access according to some processing rules, auditing user actions, and managing where or how 

data is sent. 

B-20
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

[Note: The term “access control” also refers to physical controls. This section addresses the logical access 

provided by the computer system.]

The system shall use identification and authorization data to determine user access to 

information. The system shall be able to define and control access between subjects and objects 

in the computer system. The enforcement mechanism (e.g., self/group public controls, access 

control lists, and roles) shall allow users to specify and control sharing of those objects by other 

users, or defined groups of users, or by both, and shall provide controls to limit propagation of 

access rights. The discretionary access control mechanism shall, either by explicit user action or 

by default, provide that objects are protected from unauthorized access. These access controls 

shall be capable of including or excluding access to the granularity of a single user. Access 

permission to an object by users not already possessing access permission shall be assigned only 

by authorized users. 

If the system being acquired is to be delivered with access controls established, then the Government 

must provide a security policy, definition of data objects, and lists of access classes, access types, and 

accesses (who can do what) to the data objects. 

B.10.3 Auditing 

Auditing provides protection by enabling organizations to record meaningful actions within the system

and to hold the user accountable for each action. Auditing can occur at the operating system level or 

within a database or application. The recorded audit data can assist the system security officer in 

determining who is responsible for a problem or how a problem was caused. Audit data can be used to 

deter users from attempting to exceed their authorizations and to achieve individual accountability. One 

key to accountability in computer and network systems is the recording and analysis of effective audit 

trail information. 

Some system designers provide for the auditing of specific events with mechanisms that cannot be turned 

off by the operator or system security officer. More commonly, system designers supply audit capabilities 

that can be turned on or off at the discretion of the operator or system security officer, thus allowing each 

local site to “tune” its auditing. A number of tradeoffs must be made in deciding what is to be audited and 

how often and should be considered before the acquisition of the system. 

A government management official should be responsible for selecting which events have the potential to 

be audited and, after system acquisition, which events are recorded in the audit trail. The official must 

also specify how long audit information is to be retained and on what media. These decisions should be 

based on how the audit data will be used. Audit thresholds and events should also be reviewed during the 

C&A process. 

The following is a three-part specification for auditing that should be modified for the type of system

being procured. The first part of the specification defines the auditing function. 

The system shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from modification or unauthorized 

access or destruction of an audit trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data shall

be protected so that read access to it is limited to those who are authorized.

The second part of this specification lists what types of events need to be auditable. This list should be 

modified to include security events relevant to the system function and environment. 

B-21
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

The system shall be able to record the following types of events: use of identification and 

authentication mechanisms, introduction of objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, 

program initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by computer operators and system 

administrators and/or system security officers and other security relevant events. The system 

shall also be able to audit any override of human-readable output markings.

The third part of this audit specification is a description of the audit record. This list should be modified 

to include only those data elements relevant to the system function and environment. 

For each recorded event, the audit record shall be able to identify the date and time of the event, 

user, type of event, and success or failure of the event. For identification and authentication 

events, the origin of request (e.g., terminal ID) shall be included in the audit record. For events 

that introduce an object into a user's address space and for object deletion events, the audit

record shall include the name of the object and the object's label. The system administrator shall 

be able to selectively audit the actions of any one or more users based on individual identity 

and/or object label. 

The audit system should raise alarms whenever a threshold is reached with respect to an auditing 

system resource (disk space in audit log volume) or when auditing has been turned off (either 

inadvertently or deliberately).

B.10.4 Cryptography

The NIST SP 800-21, Guideline for Implementing Cryptography in the Federal Government, provides a 

comprehensive reference for government use of cryptography. This document provides guidance to 

federal agencies regarding the selection of cryptographic controls for protecting Sensitive Unclassified 

information. This SP describes the cryptographic selection process as containing one or more of the 

following steps: 

 Perform risk assessment to identify the assets that must be protected, vulnerabilities of the system, 

and threats that might exploit the vulnerabilities. 

 Identify security regulations and policies that are applicable to the system

 Specify the cryptographic security requirements 

 Specify the security services that will address the needs identified in the above steps. 

Currently, there are four FIPS-approved symmetric algorithms: Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), 

Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple DES, and the Escrowed Encryption Standard, “Skipjack.” The 

following FIPS describe or reference these four encryption algorithms: 

 AES FIPS 197 

 DES29 FIPS 46-3 

 Triple DES FIPS 46-3 

 Escrowed Encryption Standard FIPS 185 

 29 NIST does not anticipate reaffirming single DES in FIPS 46-4, since its 56-bit key is now vulnerable to key-exhaustion attacks. 

Applications that use DES should be converted to AES or Triple DES as soon as practical. NIST recommends that new 

applications select AES encryption. 

B-22
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

NIST provides a validation service for cryptographic modules containing approved algorithms. 

Validations for conformance are required for ALL encryption algorithms and cryptographic modules. See 

Section B.10.4.5, Cryptographic Validations, for further information on validations. 

An accredited cryptographic module testing laboratory shall test the cryptographic module and 

algorithm against all applicable FIPS requirements.

Data authentication, digital signatures, key management, security of cryptographic modules, and 

cryptographic validations are important issues that should be considered in specifying cryptographic 

implementation. These issues are further discussed in the sections below. Agencies should also consider 

other technical variables such as throughput, system interfaces, and data format. In addition, products that 

implement the selected encryption algorithm may need to be customized for a particular environment. 

B.10.4.1 Data Authentication 

Provisions for data authentication should be considered when an agency determines that authentication of 

the source of data and detection of intentional modifications of data is essential. One method for data 

authentication is through the use of a MAC. A MAC authenticates both the source of a message and its 

integrity without the use of any additional mechanisms. MACs can be based on FIPS-approved 

encryption algorithms such as those above or they can be based on cryptographic hash functions. MACs 

based on cryptographic hash functions are known as Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code 

(HMAC). FIPS are available that describe the two MACs: 

 FIPS 11330 Computer Data Authentication (describes the MAC) 

 FIPS 198 Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (describes the HMAC)

NIST anticipates the development of future message authentication modes that may be used with the AES 

algorithm to be included in future releases of NIST SP 800-38, Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes 

of Operation. When available, these modes may also be used for message authentication. 

Applying the cryptographic algorithm, a MAC is calculated on and appended to information. To verify 

that the information has not been modified at some later time, the MAC is recalculated on the 

information. The new MAC is compared with the MAC that was generated previously. If they are equal, 

then the information has not been altered. 

B.10.4.2 Digital Signature 

A digital signature can be used to detect unauthorized modifications to data and to authenticate the 

identity of the signatory. This capability can be used in information systems anywhere a signature is 

required. For example, a signature may be needed on an electronic letter, form, or electronic mail (e-mail) 

message. Like the handwritten signature, the digital signature can be used to identify the originator or 

signer of electronic information. Unlike its written counterpart, the digital signature can also verify that 

information has been altered after it was electronically signed. 

A digital signature is generated using public key cryptography. Documents in a computer system are 

electronically signed by applying the originator's private key to a hash of the document. The resulting 

digital signature and document are usually stored or transmitted together. The signature can be verified 

using the public key of the signer. If the signature verifies properly, the receiver has confidence that the 

 30 Note: FIPS PUB 113 may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. 

B-23
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

owner of the public key signed the document and that the message has not been altered after it was 

signed. Because private keys are known to only their owner, it is also possible to verify the signer of the 

information to any third party. A digital signature, therefore, provides two distinct security services: nonrepudiation and message integrity. Identifying that electronic information was actually signed by the 

claimed originator to a third party provides nonrepudiation. Determining that information was not altered 

after it was signed provides message integrity. FIPS 186-2, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), addresses 

three FIPS-approved algorithms for generating and verifying digital signatures: Digital Signature

Algorithm (DSA); Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman (RSA); and Elliptic Curve DSA (ECDSA).

Testing requirements and validation lists are available for DSA, RSA, and ECDSA implementations and 

can be found at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/dss.htm. These algorithms are also tested and validated by

one of the Cryptographic Module Testing (CMT) laboratories. 

The FIPS-approved public key-based digital signature capability provided by <the system or 

specific part of the system as defined in the statement of work> shall be validated by a CMT 

laboratory. 

B.10.4.3 Key Management 

Key management is extremely important because the security of any cryptographic system is dependent 

on the security provided to the cryptographic keys. For a cryptographic system to work effectively, keys

must be generated, distributed, used, and destroyed securely. NIST is preparing specific key management 

standards and recommendations; however, they are now available only in draft form and not yet in a state 

suitable for inclusion in acquisition specifications. Pending completion of the NIST key management 

guidance, agencies may use commercially available methods and algorithms, which typically employ

public key methods. 

Key management can be a complex issue for large or diverse systems. Any key management system

should meet the system’s specific needs. 

B.10.4.4 Security of Cryptographic Modules 

The security of cryptographic modules refers to the secure design, implementation, and use of a 

cryptographic module. The security of cryptographic modules is important because cryptography is often 

relied on as the exclusive means of protecting data when the data is outside the control of the system. The 

protection of the data is, therefore, reliant on the correct operation of the cryptographic module. The 

confidence that a module is operating correctly is referred to as assurance. 

FIPS PUB 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, establishes the physical and logical 

security requirements for the design and manufacture of cryptographic modules used to protect sensitive 

unclassified information. FIPS 140-2 supersedes FIPS 140-1 and incorporates not only changes in 

applicable standards and technology since the development of FIPS 140-1, but also changes that are based 

on comments received from the vendor, laboratory, and user communities. 

FIPS PUB 140-2 defines four levels of security, with Level 1 being the lowest and Level 4 being the 

highest. Based on the level of assurance required that is determined during the security requirements 

phase, an appropriate overall FIPS PUB 140-2 level should be identified. NIST may be able to provide 

additional information, which can help agencies identify the appropriate level. The identification of the 

overall security level should be specified in the acquisition package. 

B-24
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Currently, agencies must require that cryptographic modules used to protect sensitive, unclassified 

information have been validated under the CMVP, ensuring that they have been tested and validated to 

conform to FIPS 140-2. NIST maintains a list of validated modules at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/. 

Cryptographic modules provided by <the system or specific part of the system as defined in the 

statement of work> shall be validated under the Cryptographic Module Validation Program to 

conform to FIPS 140-2, Level <insert level>.

B.10.4.5 Cryptographic Validations 

NIST provides cryptographic validation services through CMVP for FIPS 140-2, FIPS 197, FIPS 46-3, 

FIPS 81, FIPS 186-2, FIPS 180-2, and FIPS 185. NIST and the Communications Security Establishment 

(CSE) of the Government of Canada established the CMVP in July 1995. NIST’s National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits the third-party laboratories that conduct tests 

under the CMVP. 

Validations are no longer performed for the MAC standards, but the standards remain in effect. 

After encryption algorithms and modules are validated, NIST issues a validation certificate and adds the 

products to the appropriate validation list. Validation lists are available from NIST. Manufacturers, 

integrators, and offerors must use BOTH encryption algorithms and modules that have been validated to 

claim that their products are FIPS compliant. The offeror should be able to identify the validated 

implementation used in the product by supplying a copy of the validation certificates. 

NIST has issued other standards and guidelines that relate to cryptography. A list of NIST security-related 

publications is available at http://crsc.nist.gov. 

B.10.5 System Integrity

The Government can use commercial products with diagnostic capability to validate the correctness of the 

hardware and firmware operations. However, such diagnostic offerings are not usually appropriate for 

verifying the correctness of the software implementation. Depending on the level of system risk, there are 

a number of ways that the correctness of software operation can be ensured. 

Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that can be used to periodically validate the 

correct operation of the on-site hardware and firmware elements of the system. 

Some vendors are using cryptographic techniques to verify the integrity of their software. These 

techniques can be used to ensure that software received, or has in storage, the same software as the 

“master” copy of the software maintained by the vendor. 

B.10.6 System Architecture 

The use of advanced system architectures can provide assurance that the security features are correctly

and effectively implemented. High-security architectures are not commonly used in commercial products 

and they tend to be significantly more costly. Accordingly, their specification in acquisition will need to 

be justified by perceived system risk. 

In addition, the procuring organization should be aware that over specifying the architecture for a system

could preclude integrators from incorporating otherwise valid existing products. Over specifying can also 

eliminate lower cost alternatives, resulting in a more costly acquisition. This over specification is a 

B-25
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

common problem that is usually not cost effective. From a security perspective, over specification can 

actually make adequate information control more difficult. 

The mechanisms within the application that enforce access control and other security functions 

shall be continuously protected against tampering and/or unauthorized changes. 

The security-relevant software shall maintain a domain for its own execution that protects its 

security mechanisms from external interference or tampering (e.g., by modification of its code or 

data structures). Resources controlled by the system may be a defined subset of the subjects and 

objects in the computer system. The system shall maintain process isolation through the provision 

of distinct address spaces under its control. The system shall isolate the resources to be protected 

so they are controlled by the access control and auditing requirements. 

[Note: “Domain” refers to the protection environment in which a process is executing. Domain is 

sometimes also referred to as “context” or “address space.”]

B.10.7 Media Sanitizing 

With the more prevalent use of increasingly sophisticated encryption systems, an attacker wishing to gain 

access to an organization’ sensitive data is forced to look elsewhere for information. One avenue of attack 

is the recovery of supposedly deleted data from media or memory. This residual data may allow 

unauthorized individuals to reconstruct and thereby gain access to sensitive information. Media 

sanitization can be used to thwart this attack by ensuring that deleted data are completely removed from

the system or media. 

When storage media are transferred, become obsolete, or are no longer usable as a result of damage, it is 

important to ensure that residual magnetic, optical, or electrical representation of data that has been 

deleted is no longer recoverable. Sanitization is the process of removing data from storage media, such 

that there is reasonable assurance, in proportion to the sensitivity of the data, that the data may not be 

retrieved and reconstructed. Once the media are sanitized, it should be impossible or extremely difficult 

and time-consuming to retrieve the data. Several accepted methods exist for sanitizing media: 

overwriting, degaussing, and destruction. Media sanitizing, which typically occurs in the closeout phase 

of acquisition, is further addressed in Section 3.6, Contract Performance and Closeout. 

B-26
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Appendix C—Glossary

Acceptance The act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the 

Government, for itself or as agent of another, assumes control or 

ownership of existing identified supplies tendered or approves specific 

services rendered as partial or complete performance of the contract. It is 

the final determination whether, a facility or system meets the specified 

technical and performance standards. 

Acquisition Includes all stages of the process of acquiring property or services, 

beginning with the process for determining the need for the property or 

services and ending with contract completion and closeout. 

Acquisition initiator The key person who represents the program office in formulating 

information technology requirements and managing presolicitation 

activities. 

Acquisition technical evaluation The examination of proposals to determine technical acceptability and 

merit. This is part of the source selection process. 

Best and Final Offer An opportunity for offerors in the competitive range to submit final 

proposals. 

Bidder Any entity that responds to an invitation for bids with a bid. See Offeror. 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Also known as Information Technology Management Reform Act. A 

statute that substantially revised the way that IT resources are managed 

and procured, including a requirement that each agency design and 

implement a process for maximizing the value and assessing and 

managing the risks of IT investments. 

 

Closeout Includes all final contract activities (e.g., ensuring completion of all 

requirements, making final payment). 

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) Software and hardware that already exists and is available from

commercial sources. It is also referred to as off-the-shelf. 

CC Common Criteria

Competition in Contracting Act 

(CICA) of 1984 

A statute that made several revisions to federal contracting, including 

requiring that specifications be developed in an unrestricted manner to 

obtain full and open competition. 

Contract administration Government management of a contract to ensure that the Government 

receives the quality of products and services specified in the contract 

within established costs and schedules. 

Contracting Officer A person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate 

contracts and make related determinations and findings. 

C-1
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Contracting Officer’s Technical 

Representative 

An individual to whom the CO delegates certain contract administration 

responsibilities, usually related to technical direction and acceptance 

issues. 

CDRL Contract Deliverable Requirements List 

DID Data Item Description 

Deliverable A product or service that is prepared for and delivered to the Government 

under the terms of a contract. 

Directed specification A specification that must be included in Statements of Work (SOW) 

based on federal law, policy, or regulation. 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) 

The regulation that codifies uniform acquisition policies and procedures 

for Executive agencies. 

FIPS PUB An acronym for Federal Information Processing Standards Publication. 

FIPS publications (PUB) are issued by NIST after approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce. Some FIPS PUBs are mandatory for use in 

federal acquisitions. 

Flowdown The extension of prime contractor requirements to subcontractors. 

Full and open competition The consideration of all responsible sources in an acquisition, as required 

by the Competition in Contracting Act. 

ISSO Information System Security Officer 

Information Technology (IT) Any equipment or interconnected system that is used in the automatic 

acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, 

display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or 

information. It commonly includes computers, ancillary equipment, 

software, firmware, similar procedures, services, and related resources. 

Invitation for Bid (IFB) A solicitation document used when contracting by sealed bids. 

Latent defects Defects that exist at the time of acceptance but are not discoverable by a 

reasonable inspection. 

Liquidated damages Compensation to the Government for damages that result from the 

contractor failing to deliver supplies or perform services. (See FAR 12.2 

and 52.212-4). 

Live test demonstrations (LTD) The demonstration of capability or period of time during which a 

government user requires an offeror to perform certain user-witnessed 

activities. These may include one or more benchmark tests. 

Mandatory requirements Those contractual conditions and technical specifications that are 

established by the Government as being essential to meeting required 

needs. 

NIAP National Information Assurance Partnership 

C-2
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Offeror Any entity that responds to an RFP with a proposal. See Bidder. 

POP Period of Performance 

Preaward survey An evaluation by a surveying activity of a prospective contractor’s 

capability to perform a proposed contract. 

Presolicitation The period preceding release of a solicitation that includes preparation of 

documentation required by federal regulations. 

PP Protection Profile

Protest A written objection by an interested party to a solicitation for a proposed 

contract for the acquisition of supplies or services, or a written objection 

by an interested party to a proposed award, or the award of such a 

contract. 

Request for Comment (RFC) An announcement requesting industry comment on a proposed system or 

other acquisition. 

Request for Information (RFI) An announcement requesting information from industry in regard to a 

planned acquisition and, in some cases, requesting corporate capability 

information. 

Request for Proposal (RFP) A formal solicitation document used in negotiated acquisitions normally

exceeding $100,000 to communicate government requirements and to 

solicit proposals. 

Request for Quotation (RFQ) A less formal solicitation document used in negotiated acquisitions 

valued at $100,000 or less to communicate government requirements and 

to solicit quotations. 

Restrictive specification A detailed and precise description of an item(s) being acquired that can 

limit competition (e.g., a desirable feature that is not required nor 

available from more than one source brand name without the words or 

equal). 

Solicitation An official government request for bids and proposals often publicized in 

the Fed Biz Opps (http://www.fedbizopps.gov). 

Source selection The process of evaluating proposals and determining which offeror will 

be selected for contract award. 

Specification A description of the technical requirements for a material, product, or 

service. Specifications should state only the Government’s actual 

minimum needs and be designed to promote full and open competition, 

with due regard for the nature of the supplies or services to be acquired. 

Statement of Work A statement of the technical specification in the RFP that describes the 

material, product, service or system required by the Government. 

C-3
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Appendix D—References 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-12, An Introduction 

to Computer Security: The NIST Handbook, October 1995. 

NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems, December 

1998. 

NIST SP 800-21, Guideline for Implementing Cryptography in the Federal Government, November 1999. 

NIST SP 800-23, Guideline to Federal Organizations on Security Assurance and Acquisition/Use of 

Tested/Evaluated Products, August 2000. 

NIST SP 800-25, Federal Agency Use of Public Key Technology for Digital Signatures and 

Authentication, October 2000. 

NIST SP 800-27, Engineering Principles for Information Technology Security (A Baseline For Achieving 

Security), June 2001. 

NIST SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems, January 2002. 

NIST SP 800-33, Underlying Technical Models for Information Technology Security, December 2001. 

NIST SP 800-35, Guide to Information Technology Security Services, October 2003. 

NIST SP 800-36, Guide to Selecting Information Technology Security Products, October 2003. 

NIST SP 800-37, Guidelines for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information 

Systems, draft.

NIST SP 800-38B, Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: the RMAC Authentication 

Mode. 

NIST SP 800-40, Procedures for Handling Security Patches, September 2002. 

NIST SP 800-42, Guideline on Network Security Testing, October 2003. 

NIST SP 800-50, Building an Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Program, 

October 2003. 

NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems, draft. 

NIST SP 800-53A, Techniques and Procedures for Verifying the Effectiveness of Security Controls in 

Federal Information Systems, draft. 

NIST SP 800-55, Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology Systems, July 2003. 

NIST SP 800-59, Guideline for Identifying an Information System as a National Security System, August 

2003. 

NIST SP 800-60, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security 

Categorization Levels (draft). 

D-1 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

NIST SP 800-65, Integrating Security into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process (draft).

NIST Interagency Report (NISTIR) 6462, CSPP Guidance for COTS Security Protection Profiles, 

December 1999. 

Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1401 and following, 1996. 

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law (P.L.) 100-235. 

Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Subchapter III. 2002. 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Department of Defense, General Services Administration (GSA) 

and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 46-3, Data Encryption Standard (DES), October 1999. 

FIPS 81, DES Modes of Operation, December 1980. 

FIPS 113, Computer Data Authentication, May 1985.

FIPS 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, June 2001. 

FIPS 180-2, Secure Hash Standard (SHS), August 2002. 

FIPS 185, Escrowed Encryption Standard, February 1994. 

FIPS 186-2, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), January 2000. 

FIPS 197, Advanced Encryption Standard, November 2001. 

FIPS 198, The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC), March 2002. 

FIPS 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, final 

public draft (December 2003). 

GSA publication, A Guide to Planning, Acquiring, and Managing Information Technology Systems, 

Version 1, December 1998. 

International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 

International Standard 15408:1999 (parts 1 through 3), Common Criteria for Information Technology 

Security Evaluation, August 1999. 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113). 

National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy (NSTISSP) No. 11, 

January 2000, National Information Assurance Acquisition Policy, 

http://www.nstissc.gov/Assets/pdf/nstissp_11.pdf 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information 

Resources, Office of Management and Budget, November 2000. 

OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, May 2003. 

D-2 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, (44 U.S.C. 3501 (10) and 3506). 

United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property

Section. Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations, 

http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm, January 2001. 

Section 781 of title 50, U.S.C. 

Section 831 through 835 of title 50, U.S.C. 

Section 552a of Title 5, U.S.C. 

Pressman, Roger S. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. 4th Edition. New York: McGrawHill, 1997. 

D-3 
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Appendix E—Frequently Asked Questions 

1. For whom is the guide intended? 

NIST SP 800-64, Security Considerations in the Information System Development Life Cycle, is

intended for the use of acquisition initiators (e.g., the end user, program manager, or contracting 

officer’s technical representative (COTR), contracting officers, and information technology (IT)

security officials. 

2. Why was this guide written?

Organizations must consider information security in all phases of information resources management, 

including the acquisition phase. Federal agencies must do this to meet the requirements of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR]. This 

guide presents a framework for incorporating security into all phases of the SDLC, from initiation to 

system disposition. Including information security early in the SDLC for an information system will 

usually result in less expensive and more effective security than adding security to an operational 

system once it has entered service. 

3. When should information security considerations factor into the SDLC? 

Each phase of the SDLC needs to factor in IT security considerations. The longer a program manager 

waits in the SDLC to incorporate a security control, the more costly this control will be. 

4. What is the acquisition life cycle? 

The SDLC has five phases:

 Initiation 

 Acquisition / Development 

 Implementation 

 Operations / Maintenance 

 Disposition. 

5. Who are the key participants in the SDLC? 

The list and titles of participants will vary depending on the nature and scope of the system and 

organization; however, key roles include the chief information officer (CIO), contracting officer, 

COTR, IT investment board (or equivalent), information security program manager, information 

system security officer, program manager (owner of data)/acquisition initiator, and legal 

advisor/contract attorney, among others. 

6. How does one identify the protection requirements?

The process of identifying functional and other security requirements should include an analysis of 

laws and regulations such as the Privacy Act, Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act, Federal 

Information Security Management of 2002, OMB circulars, agency enabling acts, NIST publications 

and relevant FIPs, and other legislation and federal regulations, which define baseline security 

E-1
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

requirements. After a review of mandated requirements, agencies should consider functional and 

other security requirements.

7. What is assurance and how does one get it? 

Assurance is the degree to which the purchaser of a system knows that the security features and 

procedures being acquired will operate correctly and will be effective in the purchaser’s environment. 

An analysis to determine the level of assurance will need to be performed to determine the level of 

assurance that is necessary. Many techniques exist for obtaining assurance, including, conformance 

testing and validation suites, Common Criteria, evaluations by government agencies, evaluations by

independent organizations, evaluations by another vendor, and evaluations by another Government. 

8. How does a risk assessment fit into the SDLC? 

A risk assessment during the Acquisition / Development phase is a critical step. It is used to 

determine what types of controls will be cost effective and will form the basis for determining 

mandatory and desirable specifications for the system. 

9. How should an organization evaluate the IT security components of proposals? 

As part of the acquisition phase, the acquisition initiator, working with the contracting officer, 

develops an evaluation plan to determine the basis for the evaluation and how it will be conducted. 

The evaluation itself is performed during the source selection phase of the acquisition. Information 

security should be addressed in the evaluation criteria so that offerors will know that it is important to 

the Government. The evaluation plan will determine how offerors will be required to provide 

assurance that the hardware and software claims regarding information security features are true and 

that the offeror can provide the proposed services. 

10. What is inspection and acceptance? 

Acceptance refers to the Government’s decision to inspect, then accept, and therefore, pay for a 

deliverable. When inspecting deliverables for acceptance, the Government should be careful. Testing 

by the Government or an independent validation and verification contractor to determine that the 

system does meet specifications can be very useful. This effort should include testing the security of 

the system. 

11. What happens if the requirements change during contract performance? 

After award, changes to the Government’s requirements should be minimal. If changes occur, there 

are mechanisms to modify the contract to accommodate some changes. However, these modifications 

can be very costly. In addition, some changes may require separate acquisitions and new security 

controls that are retrofitted to a system are seldom as effective as controls designed into the system. 

12. What information security steps occur during the disposition phase? 

There are three IT security steps in the final phase of the acquisition life cycle: 

 Preserve information 

 Sanitize media 

E-2
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

 Dispose of hardware and software. 

13. Are there other NIST publications that can assist me in incorporating security into the SDLC? 

There are some NIST publications that have a direct correlation to the security considerations of table 

2-1 of this guide. Other NIST publications can be used as a companion but don’t address a specific 

consideration directly. The table below provides a mapping between security considerations and 

NIST publications, if one is available. 

Security Consideration NIST Publication 

Security Categorization FIPS 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal 

Information and Information Systems 

NIST SP 800-59, Guideline for Identifying an Information System as 

a National Security System

NIST SP 800-60, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and 

Information Systems to Security Categorization Levels

Risk Assessment NIST SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information 

Technology Systems

Security Functional 

Requirements Analysis NIST SP 800-12, An Introduction to Computer Security: The NIST 

Handbook

NIST SP 800-21, Guideline for Implementing Cryptography in the 

Federal Government

NIST SP 800-27 Engineering Principles for Information Technology 

Security (A Baseline For Achieving Security)

NIST SP 800-33, Underlying Technical Models for Information 

Technology Security

NISTIR 6462, CSPP Guidance for COTS Security Protection Profiles

Security Assurance 

Requirements Analysis NIST SP 800-23, Guideline to Federal Organizations on Security 

Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Tested/Evaluated Products

Cost Considerations and 

Reporting NIST SP 800-55, Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology 

Systems 

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

Investment ControlProcess

Security Planning NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for 

Information Technology Systems

Security Control 

Development NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal 

Information Systems

E-3
NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 800-64

Security Consideration NIST Publication 

Developmental Security Test 

and Evaluation 

NIST SP 800-37, Guidelines for the Security Certification and 

Accreditation of Federal Information Systems 

NIST SP 800-42, Guideline on Network Security Testing

NIST SP 800-53A, Techniques and Procedures for Verifying the 

Effectiveness of Security Controls in Federal Information Systems

Other Planning Components NIST SP 800-35, Guide to Information Technology Security Services

NIST SP 800-36, Guide to Selecting Information Technology Security 

Products

Inspection and Acceptance NIST SP 800-23, Guideline to Federal Organizations on Security 

Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Tested/Evaluated Products

Security Control Integration NIST SP 800-43, Systems Administration Guidance for Windows 

2000 Professional

NIST SP 800-48, Wireless Network Security: 802.11, Bluetooth, and 

Handheld Devices 

NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal 

Information Systems

Security Certification and 

Accreditation NIST SP 800-37, Guidelines for the Security Certification and 

Accreditation of Federal Information Systems

Continuous Monitoring NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information 

Technology Systems 

NIST SP 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information 

Technology Systems 

NIST SP 800-47, Security Guide for Interconnecting Information 

Technology Systems 

NIST SP 800-50, Building an Information Technology Security 

Awareness and Training Program 

NIST SP 800-55, Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology 

Systems 

NIST SP 800-61, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide

E-4