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The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. 

It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below).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The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): 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: JuůLJ ϭρ, 2015 

NIST Special Publication 800-55

Security Metrics Guide for Information Technology Systems

August 2003

July 2008

SP 800-55 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of

SP 800-55 Revision 1 (July 2008).

NIST Special Publication 800-55 Revision 1

Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security

Elizabeth Chew, Marianne Swanson, Kevin Stine, Nadya Bartol,

Anthony Brown, and Will Robinson

July 2008

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-55r1

Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab)

SP 800-55 Revision 1 (as of July 15, 2015)

http://csrc.nist.gov/

N/A
i

 INITIAL PUBLIC DRAFT

NIST Special Publication 800-55 Security Metrics Guide for 

Information Technology Systems

Marianne Swanson, Nadya Bartol, John Sabato, Joan 

Hash, and Laurie Graffo

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 20899-8933

July 2003

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
ii

Reports on Computer Systems Technology

The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the Nation’s 

measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of 

concept implementations, and technical analyses to advance the development and productive use of 

information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of management, administrative, 

technical, and physical standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive 

unclassified information in federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s 

research, guidelines, and outreach efforts in computer security, and its collaborative activities with 

industry, government, and academic organizations.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2003

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov — Phone: (202) 512-1800 — Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
iii

Authority

This document has been developed by NIST in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Computer 

Security Act of 1987 and the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (specifically 15 United States 

Code (U.S.C.) 278 g-3 (a)(5)). This is not a guideline within the meaning of 15 U.S.C 278 g-3 (a)(3).

These guidelines are for use by Federal organizations which process sensitive information. They are consistent with 

the requirements of OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III.

This document may be used by non-governmental organizations on a voluntary basis. It is not subject to copyright.

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

federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under his statutory authority. Nor should these guidelines be 

interpreted as altering or superseding the existing authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget, or any other Federal official. 

 

 

 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept 

adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it 

intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the 

best available for the purpose. 
iv

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Elizabeth Lennon (NIST), Richard Kissel (NIST), Will Robinson (Booz Allen 

Hamilton), and Matt Dombrowski (Booz Allen Hamilton) who reviewed drafts of this document and 

contributed to its development. We would like to thank Ellen Roth and Gail Brown (Booz Allen Hamilton) 

for the development and delivery of the metrics workshop. We would also like to acknowledge the 

contributions of the NIST/CIO Council Metrics Working Group. 
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................VII

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

1.1 History.................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Overview of Metrics Program.............................................................................................2

1.3 Relationship to Other NIST Documents.............................................................................3

1.4 Audience .............................................................................................................................3

1.5 Document Organization......................................................................................................3

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................5

2.1 Head of the Agency.............................................................................................................5

2.2 Chief Information Officer ...................................................................................................5

2.3 Agency IT Security Program Manager ...............................................................................6

2.4 Program Manager/System Owner.......................................................................................7

2.5 System Security Officer......................................................................................................8

3. IT SECURITY METRICS BACKGROUND......................................................................9

3.1 Definition............................................................................................................................9

3.2 Benefits of Using Metrics.................................................................................................10

3.3 Metrics Types....................................................................................................................11

3.4 Success Factors.................................................................................................................13

3.4.1 Organizational Considerations...................................................................................13

3.4.2 Manageability.............................................................................................................13

3.4.3 Data Management Concerns ......................................................................................13

4. METRICS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ....................15

4.1 Metrics Development Process...........................................................................................15

4.1.1 Stakeholder Interest Identification.............................................................................16

4.1.2 Goals and Objectives Definition................................................................................17

4.1.3 IT Security Policies, Guidance, and Procedures Review...........................................18

4.1.4 System Security Program Implementation Review...................................................18

4.1.5 Metrics Development and Selection..........................................................................19

4.2 Establishing Performance Targets ....................................................................................21

4.3 Feedback Within Metrics Development Process..............................................................22

5. METRICS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION................................................................24

5.1 Prepare for Data Collection...............................................................................................24

5.2 Collect Data and Analyze Results.....................................................................................25

5.3 Identify Corrective Actions...............................................................................................26

5.4 Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources.................................................................27

5.5 Apply Corrective Actions .................................................................................................28

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE IT SECURITY METRICS ........................................................A-1

A.1 Risk Management............................................................................................................. A-3

A.2 Security Controls.............................................................................................................. A-7
vi

A.3 System Development Life Cycle .................................................................................. A-11

A.4 Authorize Processing (Certification and Accreditation)................................................ A-14

A.5 System Security Plan ..................................................................................................... A-18

A.6 Personnel Security......................................................................................................... A-20

A.7 Physical and Environmental Protection......................................................................... A-22

A.8 Production, Input/Output Controls................................................................................ A-26

A.9 Contingency Planning.................................................................................................... A-29

A.10 Hardware and Systems Software Maintenance............................................................ A-34

A.11 Data Integrity ............................................................................................................... A-38

A.12 Documentation............................................................................................................. A-42

A.13 Security Awareness, Training, and Education............................................................. A-44

A.14 Incident Response Capability....................................................................................... A-47

A.16 Logical Access Controls .............................................................................................. A-55

APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS................................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES.............................................................................................C-1

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1-1. Security Metrics Program Structure .............................................................................2

Figure 3-1. Security Program Maturity and Types of Measurement ............................................11

Figure 4-1. IT Security Metrics Development Process.................................................................15

Table 4-1. Metric Detail Form.....................................................................................................20

Figure 4-2. IT Security Metric Trend Example ............................................................................22

Figure 5-1. IT Security Metrics Program Implementation Process..............................................24

Table A-1. OMB FISMA Metrics Reference .................................................................................2
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The requirement to measure IT security performance is driven by regulatory, financial, and 

organizational reasons. A number of existing laws, rules, and regulations cite IT performance 

measurement in general, and IT security performance measurement in particular, as a 

requirement. These laws include the Clinger-Cohen Act, Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA), Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), and Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA). 

This document provides guidance on how an organization, through the use of metrics, identifies 

the adequacy of in-place security controls, policies, and procedures. It provides an approach to 

help management decide where to invest in additional security protection resources or identify 

and evaluate nonproductive controls. It explains the metric development and implementation 

process and how it can also be used to adequately justify security control investments. The 

results of an effective metric program can provide useful data for directing the allocation of 

information security resources and should simplify the preparation of performance-related 

reports.

Metrics are tools designed to facilitate decision making and improve performance and 

accountability through collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related data. 

IT security metrics must be based on IT security performance goals and objectives. IT security 

performance goals state the desired results of a system security program implementation. IT 

security performance objectives enable accomplishment of goals by identifying practices defined 

by security policies and procedures that direct consistent implementation of security controls 

across the organization. IT security metrics monitor the accomplishment of the goals and 

objectives by quantifying the level of implementation of the security controls and the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, analyzing the adequacy of security activities and 

identifying possible improvement actions. This document provides examples of metrics based on 

the critical elements and security controls and techniques contained in NIST Special Publication 

800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems. During metrics 

development, goals and objectives from federal, interna l, and external guidance, legislation, and 

regulations are identified and prioritized to ensure that the measurable aspects of security 

performance correspond to operational priorities of the organization.

The following matters must be considered during development and implementation of IT 

security metrics program:

• Metrics must yield quantifiable information (percentages, averages, and numbers)

• Data supporting metrics needs to be readily obtainable

• Only repeatable processes should be considered for measurement

• Metrics must be useful for tracking performance and directing resources.
viii

Metrics development process, described in this document, ensures that the metrics are developed 

with the purpose of identifying causes of poor performance and therefore point to appropriate 

corrective actions.

Organizations can develop and collect metrics of three types:

• Implementation metrics to measure implementation of security policy

• Effectiveness/efficiency metrics to measure results of security services delivery

• Impact metrics to measure business or mission impact of security events.

The types of metrics that can realistically be obtained and that can also be useful for performance 

improvement depend on the maturity of the agency’s security program and the system’s security 

control implementation. Although different types of metrics can be used simultaneously, the 

primary focus of IT security metrics shifts as the implementation of security controls matures.
1

1. INTRODUCTION

The requirement to measure information technology (IT) security performance is driven by 

regulatory, financial, and organizational reasons. A number of existing laws, rules, and 

regulations cite IT performance measurement in general, and IT security performance 

measurement in particular, as a requirement. These laws include the Clinger-Cohen Act, 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(GPEA), and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). 

This document is intended to be a guide for the specific development, selection, and 

implementation of IT system-level metrics to be used to measure the performance of information 

security controls and techniques.1 IT security metrics are tools designed to facilitate decision 

making and improve performance and accountability through collection, analysis, and reporting 

of relevant performance-related data. This document provides guidance on how an organization, 

through the use of metrics, identifies the adequacy of in-place security controls, policies, and 

procedures. It provides an approach to help management decide where to invest in additional 

security protection resources or identify and evaluate nonproductive controls. It explains the 

metrics development and implementation processes and how metrics can be used to adequately 

justify security control investments. The results of an effective IT security metrics program can 

provide useful data for directing the allocation of information security resources and should 

simplify the preparation of performance-related reports. Successful implementation of such a 

program assists agencies in meeting the annual requirements of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to report the status of agency IT security programs. 

1.1 History

The approach for measuring IT security controls and techniques has been under development for 

numerous years. This document builds on these past efforts and presents an approach that aligns 

with the security control objectives and techniques contained in the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-26, Security Self-Assessment 

Guide for Information Technology Systems. 

Security control objectives and techniques for systems and programs are reviewed and reported 

annually to OMB in accordance with the Electronic Government Act of 2002, which includes the 

Federal Information Security Management Act commonly referred to as FISMA. The act 

requires departments and agencies to demonstrate that they are meeting applicable security 

requirements and to document the actual level of performance based on the results of annual 

program reviews. 

On May 21, 2002, the NIST Federal Computer Security Program Managers’ Forum sponsored 

two IT security metrics workshops designed to help federal personnel with OMB fiscal year (FY) 

 

1 The word “system” is used as an aggregate term to signify Major Applications (MA) and General Support Systems (GSS) as 

defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix III.
2

2002 Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA) draft reporting guidance. GISRA, 

which is a part of the Public Law 106 398, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2001, was replaced by FISMA in December 2002. Approximately 75 federal 

government employees attended these workshops, where they learned to develop IT security 

metrics that map to NIST SP 800-26 critical elements. This document, NIST SP 800-55, 

captures the proceedings of the workshops, including the original metrics developed by the 

breakout groups, expands on the topics presented in the workshops, and contains example 

metrics and implementation guidance for using the metrics. 

1.2 Overview of Metrics Program

A security metrics program within an organization should include four interdependent 

components (see Figure 1-1). 

Figure 1-1. Security Metrics Program Structure

The foundation of strong upper-level management support is critical, not only for the success of 

the security program, but also for the implementation of a security metrics program. This 

support establishes a focus on security within the highest levels of the organization. Without a 

solid foundation (i.e., proactive support of those persons in positions that control IT resources), 

the effectiveness of the security metrics program can fail when pressured by politics and budget 

limitations. 

The second component of an effective security metrics program is practical security policies and 

procedures backed by the authority necessary to enforce compliance. Practical security policies 
3

and procedures are defined as those that are attainable and provide meaningful security through 

appropriate controls. Metrics are not easily obtainable if there are no procedures in place. 

The third component is developing and establishing quantifiable performance metrics that are 

designed to capture and provide meaningful performance data. To provide meaningful data, 

quantifiable security metrics must be based on IT security performance goals and objectives, and 

be easily obtainable and feasible to measure. They must also be repeatable, provide relevant 

performance trends over time, and be useful for tracking performance and directing resources. 

Finally, the security metrics program itself must emphasize consistent periodic analysis of the 

metrics data. The results of this analysis are used to apply lessons learned, improve the 

effectiveness of existing security controls, and plan future controls to meet new security 

requirements as they occur. Accurate data collection must be a priority with stakeholders and 

users if the collected data is to be meaningful to the management and improvement of the overall 

security program.

The success of an information security program implementation should be judged by the degree 

to which meaningful results are produced. A comprehensive security metrics analysis program 

should provide substantive justification for decisions that directly affect the security posture of 

an organization. These decisions include budget and personnel requests and allocation of 

available resources. A security metrics program should provide a precise basis for preparation of 

required security performance-related reports.

1.3 Relationship to Other NIST Documents

This document is a continuation in a series of NIST special publications intended to assist IT 

management and security personnel in the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of an 

IT security program. NIST SP 800-26 identifies five management control topic areas, nine 

operational control topic areas, and three technical control topic areas that affect the security 

posture of an organization. This document provides a recommended methodology for 

quantifying the critical elements in NIST SP 800-26 and for validating the implementation and 

effectiveness of the system security control objectives and techniques.

1.4 Audience

This document provides guidance for IT managers and security professionals at all levels, inside 

and outside the government. 

1.5 Document Organization

The remaining sections of this guide discuss the following: 

• Section 2 – Roles and Responsibilities, describes the roles and responsibilities of the 

agency staff that have a direct interest in the success of the IT security program, and in 

the establishment of a security metrics program. 
4

• Section 3 – IT Security Metrics Background, provides guidance on the background and 

definition of Security Metrics, the benefits of implementation, various types of security 

metrics, and the factors which directly affect the success of a security metrics program. 

• Section 4 – Metrics Development, presents the approach and process used for the 

development of useful IT security metrics.

• Section 5 – Metrics Program Implementation, discusses those factors that can affect the 

technical implementation of a security metrics program.

This guide also contains three appendices. Appendix A – Computer Security Metrics Examples, 

provides practical examples of security metrics that can be used or modified to meet specific 

agency requirements. Appendix B provides a list of acronyms used in this document. Appendix 

C lists references.
5

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section outlines the key roles and responsibilities for developing and implementing IT 

security metrics. 

2.1 Head of the Agency

The head of the agency is held accountable for the security posture of the organization’s IT 

infrastructure. This position controls the resource budget and has ultimate management 

responsibility for resource allocation. The head of the agency has the following responsibilities 

related to IT security performance metrics:

• Demonstrates support for IT security metrics development and implementation, and 

communicates official support to the agency

• Ensures that the program has adequate financia l and human resources for success

• Actively promotes IT security metrics as an essential facilitator of IT security 

performance improvement throughout the agency

• Approves policy to officially institute metrics and the development and implementation 

of metrics

• Motivates program managers and ensures that they develop and use metrics in support of 

the information security program.

2.2 Chief Information Officer 

The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (also known as the ClingerCohen Act) requires agencies to appoint Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and to use business 

process reengineering and performance measures to ensure effective IT procurement and 

implementation. 

The CIO has the following responsibilities related to IT security metrics:

• Demonstrates management’s commitment to IT security metrics development and 

implementation through formal leadership.

• Formally communicates the importance of using IT security metrics to monitor the 

overall health of the IT security program and to comply with applicable regulations 

• Ensures IT security metrics program development and implementation 

• Allocates adequate financial and human resources to the program
6

• Communicates with program managers/system owners to facilitate metrics acceptance 

and build support for the program

• Empowers IT metrics collection

• Reviews IT security metrics regularly and uses IT security metrics data to support policy, 

resource allocation, budget decisions, and an understanding of the IT security program 

posture.

• Ensures that a process is in place to address issues discovered through metrics analysis 

and takes corrective actions, such as revising security procedures and providing 

additional security training to staff 

• Issues policy, procedures, and guidance to officially develop, implement, and institute 

metrics.

2.3 Agency IT Security Program Manager2

This position is known by different names, such as Deputy CIO for Cyber Security, Deputy CIO 

for IT Security, or Information System Security Officer (ISSO). This is an official whose 

primary responsibility is IT security agency wide. The IT Security Program Manager has the 

following responsibilities related to IT security metrics:

• Leads IT security metrics program development and implementation

• Ensures a standard process is used throughout the agency for metrics development, 

creation, and analysis

• Leads development of any internal guidance or policy related to IT security metrics

• Obtains qualified government staff and/or contractor support for program development 

and implementation

• Obtains adequate financial resources to support program development and 

implementation

• Actively solicits input from and provides feedback to the program manager/system owner 

at every step of program development

• Ensures that metrics data is collected, analyzed, and reported to the CIO and agency 

program manager/system owner

 

2

 Under FISMA this position is titled Senior Agency Information Security Officer.
7

• Reviews IT security metrics regularly, and uses IT security metrics data as support for 

policy, resource allocation, budget decisions, and insight into the health of the IT security 

program 

• Educates program managers/system owners about using results of IT security metrics for 

policy, resource allocation, and budget decisions

• Ensures adequate maintenance of the program, in which the metrics that have reached 

their performance target are phased out and new metrics are developed and used

• Ensures manageability of the program by limiting the number of collected metrics at a 

single point in time to between 10 and 20 metrics

• Ensures prioritization of metrics to address high-priority items and problem areas

• Ensures that the corrective actions, identified through measuring IT security performance, 

are implemented.

2.4 Program Manager/System Owner

System and information owners are responsible for ensuring that proper controls are in place to 

address confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IT systems and the owners’ data. The 

program manager/system owner has the following responsibilities related to IT security metrics:

• Participates in IT security metrics program development and implementation by 

providing feedback on the feasibility of data collection and identifies data sources and 

repositories

• Educates staff about the development, collection, and analysis of IT security metrics and 

how it will affect IT security policy, requirements, resource allocation, and budget 

decisions

• Ensures that metrics data is collected consistently and accurately and is provided to 

designated staff that are analyzing and reporting the data

• Directs full participation and cooperation of staff, when required

• Reviews IT security metrics data regularly and uses it for policy, resource allocation, and 

budget decisions

• Supports implementation of corrective actions, identified through measuring IT security 

performance.
8

2.5 System Security Officer

The term System Security Officer, used in this document, means an individual assigned 

responsibility for security of a specific program or system within an agency or a department. 

The System Security Officer has the following responsibilities related to IT security metrics: 

• Manages day-to-day program development and implementation

• Collects data or provides metrics data to designated staff that are collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting the data

• Assists with implementation of corrective actions identified when measuring IT security 

performance.
9

3. IT SECURITY METRICS BACKGROUND

This section provides basic information on what metrics are and why IT security performance 

should be measured. Additionally, this section defines types of metrics that can be used to 

measure IT security controls, discusses the key aspects of making a metrics program successful, 

and identifies the uses of metrics for management, reporting, and decision making.

3.1 Definition

Metrics are tools designed to facilitate decision making and improve performance and 

accountability through collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant performance-related data. 

The purpose of measuring performance is to monitor the status of measured activities and 

facilitate improvement in those activities by applying corrective actions, based on observed 

measurements.

IT security metrics can be obtained at different levels within an organization. Detailed metrics, 

collected at the system level, can be aggregated and rolled up to progressively higher levels, 

depending on the size and complexity of an organization. While a case can be made for using 

different terms for more detailed and aggregated items, such as “metrics” and “measures,” this 

document uses these terms interchangeably. 

IT security metrics must be based on IT security performance goals and objectives. IT security 

performance goals state the desired results of a system security program implementation, such as 

“All employees should receive adequate security awareness training.” IT security performance 

objectives enable accomplishment of goals by identifying practices defined by security policies 

and procedures that direct consistent implementation of security controls across the organization. 

Examples of IT security performance objectives, corresponding to the example goal cited above 

are “All new employees receive new employee training,” “Employee training includes a 

summary of the Rules of Behavior,” and “Employee training includes a summary and a reference 

to the organization’s security policies and procedures.” IT security metrics monitor the 

accomplishment of the goals and objectives by quantifying implementation of the security 

controls and the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls, analyzing the adequacy of security 

activities, and identifying possible improvement actions. During metrics development, goals and 

objectives from federal, internal, and external guidance, legislation, and regulations are identified 

and prioritized to ensure that the measurable aspects of security performance correspond to 

operational priorities of the organization.

IT security metrics must yield quantifiable information for comparison purposes, apply formulas 

for analysis, and track changes using the same points of reference. Percentages or averages are 

most common, and absolute numbers are sometimes useful, depending on the activity that is 

being measured. 

Data required for calculating metrics must be readily obtainable, and the process that is under 

consideration needs to be measurable. Only processes that can be consistent and repeatable 

should be considered for measurement. Although the processes may be repeatable and stable, 
10

the measurable data may be difficult to obtain. Metrics must use easily obtainable data to ensure 

that the burden of measurement on the organization does not defeat the purpose of measurement 

by absorbing the resources that may be needed elsewhere.

To be useful for tracking performance and directing resources, metrics need to provide relevant 

performance trends over time and point to improvement actions that can be applied to problem 

areas. Management should use metrics to assess performance by reviewing metrics trends, 

identifying and prioritizing corrective actions, and directing the application of those corrective 

actions based on risk mitigation factors and available resources. The metrics development 

process, described in Section 4, ensures that the metrics are developed with the purpose of 

identifying causes of poor performance and therefore point to appropriate corrective actions.

3.2 Benefits of Using Metrics

A security metrics program provides a number of organizational and financial benefits. 

Organizations can improve accountability for security by deploying IT security metrics. The 

process of data collection and reporting will enable the management to pinpoint specific 

technical, operational, or management controls that are not being implemented or are 

implemented incorrectly. IT security metrics can be created to measure each aspect of the 

organization’s security. For example, the results of risk assessments, penetration testing, security 

testing and evaluation, and other security-related activities can be quantified and used as data 

sources for metrics. Using the results of the metrics analysis, program managers and system 

owners can isolate problems, use collected data to justify investment requests, and then target 

investments specifically to the areas in need of improvement. By using metrics to target security 

investments, organizations can get the best value from available resources.

Departments and agencies can demonstrate compliance with applicable laws, rules, and 

regulations by implementing and maintaining an IT security metrics program as described in this 

document. IT security metrics will assist in satisfying the annual FISMA reporting requirement 

to state performance measures for past and current fiscal years. Additionally, IT security metrics 

can be used as input into the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Inspectors General (IG) 

audits. Implementation of an IT security metrics program will demonstrate agency commitment 

to proactive security. It will also greatly reduce time spent by agencies collecting the data, which 

is routinely requested by GAO and IG during audits and for subsequent status updates. The 

implementation of an IT security metrics program means that the requested data may have been 

tracked, collected, and analyzed as a part of a regular metrics program operation.

Fiscal constraints and market conditions compel government and industry to operate on reduced 

budgets. In such an environment, it is difficult to justify broad investments in the IT security 

infrastructure. Historically, arguments for investing in specific areas of IT security lack detail 

and specificity, and fail to adequately mitigate specific system risk. Use of IT security metrics 

will allow organizations to measure successes and failures of past and current security 

investments and should provide quantifiable data that will support allocation of resources for 

future investments. IT security metrics can also assist with determining effectiveness of 

implemented IT security processes, procedures, and controls by relating results of IT security 
11

activities (e.g., incident data, revenue lost to cyber attacks) to the respective requirements and to 

IT security investments.

3.3 Metrics Types

The maturity of an organization’s IT security program determines the type of metrics that can be 

gathered successfully as depicted in Figure 3-1. 

Figure 3-1. Security Program Maturity and Types of Measurement

A program’s maturity is defined by the existence and institutionalization of processes and 

procedures. As a security program matures, its policies become more detailed and better 

documented, the processes that it uses become more standardized and institutionalized, and it 

produces data that can be used for performance measurement in greater quantity. According to 

NIST SP 800-26, the security program progresses from having policies (Level 1) to having 

detailed procedures (Level 2), implementing these procedures (Level 3), testing compliance with 

and effectiveness of the procedures (Level 4), and finally fully integrating policies and 

procedures into daily operations (Level 5). A mature program normally deploys multiple 
12

tracking mechanisms to document and quantify various aspects of its performance. As more data 

becomes available, the difficulty of measurement decreases, and the ability to automate data 

collection increases. Data collection automation depends on the availability of data from 

automated sources versus the availability of data from people. Manual data collection involves 

developing questionnaires and conducting interviews and surveys with the organization’s staff. 

More useful data becomes available from semi automated and automated data sources, such as 

self-assessment tools, certification and accreditation (C&A) databases, incident reporting and 

response databases, and other data sources as a security program matures. Metrics data 

collection is fully automated when all data is gathered by using automated data sources without 

human involvement or intervention.

The types of metrics (implementation, efficiency and effectiveness, and impact) that can 

realistically be obtained and that can also be useful for performance improvement depend on the 

maturity of the security control implementation. Although different types of metrics can be used 

simultaneously, the primary focus of IT security metrics shifts as the implementation of security 

controls matures. When security controls have been defined in procedures and are in the process 

of being implemented, the primary focus of metrics will be on the level of implementation of 

security controls. Examples of implementation metrics that are applied at this level of maturity 

are the percentage of systems with approved security plans and the percentage of systems with 

password policies configured as required. When a system progresses through Level 1 and Level 

2, the results of these metrics will be less than 100 percent, indicating that the system has not yet 

reached Level 3. When the metrics implementation results reach and remain at 100 percent, it 

can be concluded that the system has fully implemented security controls and has reached Level 

3. 

As security controls are documented and implemented, the ability to reliably collect the outcome 

of their implementation improves. As an organization’s IT security program evolves and 

performance data becomes more readily available, metrics will focus on program efficiency—

timeliness of security service delivery and effectiveness—operational results of security control 

implementation. Once security is integrated into an organization’s processes, the processes 

become self-regenerating, measurement data collection becomes fully automated, and the 

mission or business impact of security-related actions and events can be determined by data 

correlation analysis. Appendix A contains examples of implementation, and efficiency and 

effectiveness metrics, based on NIST SP 800-26 critical elements.

The metrics at Level 4 and Level 5 concentrate on measuring effectiveness and efficiency of 

implemented security controls and the impact of these controls on the organization’s mission. 

These metrics concentrate on the evidence and results of testing and integration. Instead of 

measuring the percentage of approved security plans, these metrics concentrate on validating 

whether security controls, described in the security plans, are effective in protecting the 

organization’s assets. For example, computing the percentage of crackable passwords within a 

predefined time threshold will validate the effectiveness of an organization’s password policy by 

measuring the length of time required to break policy-compliant passwords. The impact metrics 

would quantify incidents by type (e.g., root compromise, password compromise, malicious code, 

denial of service) and correlate the incident data to the percentage of trained users and system 

administrators to measure the impact of training on security. 
13

3.4 Success Factors

A number of factors influence the success of an IT security metrics program. Success is 

achieved only if the program is organized and implemented with the consideration of specific 

organizational structure, processes, and within reasonable resource constraints.

3.4.1 Organizational Considerations

System stakeholders must be included in the IT security metrics development and program 

implementation. Organizational elements that do not have IT security as their primary 

responsibility but interact with IT security on a regular basis (e.g., training, resource 

management, legal department) must also be included in this process. If an organizational 

element exists that is responsible for performance measurement in general, the development and 

implementation of an IT security metrics program should be coordinated with that organization. 

If a process exists for approving organization wide data calls and actions, the IT security metrics 

program development and implementation should comply with the existing process.

3.4.2 Manageability

A very important success factor is manageability of the metrics program. Results of many 

security activities can be quantified and used for performance measurement; however, since 

resources are limited and the majority of resources should be applied to correcting performance 

gaps, organizations should prioritize measurement requirements to ensure that a limited number 

of metrics are gathered. This number should be kept between five and ten metrics per stakeholder 

at a single time. As the program matures and target levels of measurement are reached, obsolete 

metrics should be phased out, and the new metrics that are measuring completion and 

effectiveness of more current items should be deployed. New metrics will also be required if the 

mission of the organization is redefined or if there are changes in security policies and guidance.

3.4.3 Data Management Concerns

To ascertain the quality and validity of data, data collection methods and data repositories used 

for metrics data collection and reporting, either directly or as data sources, should be 

standardized. The validity of data is suspect if the primary data source is an incident-reporting 

database that stores only the information reported by some organizational elements, or if 

reporting processes between organizations are inconsistent. The importance of standardizing 

reporting processes cannot be overemphasized. When organizations are developing and 

implementing processes that may serve as inputs into an IT security metrics program, they must 

ensure that data gathering and reporting are clearly defined to facilitate the collection of valid 

data.

Finally, organizations must understand that although they may collect a lot of IT security data, 

not all data will be useful for their metrics program at any given point in time. Any data 

collection, specifically for the purpose of IT security metrics, must be as nonintrusive as possible 
14

and of maximum usefulness to ensure that available resources are primarily used to correct 

problems, not collect data. The establishment of a metrics program will require a substantial 

investment to ensure that the program is properly implemented to maximize its benefits. The 

resources required for maintaining the program are not expected to be as significant.
15

4. METRICS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

Two processes guide the establishment and operation of an IT security metrics program: metrics 

development and metrics implementation. The metrics development process establishes the 

initial set of metrics and selection of the metrics subset appropriate for an organization at a given 

time. The metrics program implementation process operates a metrics program that is iterative 

by nature and ensures that appropriate aspects of IT security are measured for a specific time 

period. The remainder of this section describes the metrics development process. Section 5 

describes the metrics program implementation process.

4.1 Metrics Development Process

Figure 4-1 illustrates the place of IT security metrics within a larger organizational context and 

demonstrates that IT security metrics can be used to progressively measure implementation, 

efficiency, effectiveness, and the business impact of IT security activities within organizations or 

for specific systems. 

Figure 4-1. IT Security Metrics Development Process

The IT security metrics development process consists of two major activities:

1. Identification and definition of the current IT security program; and

2. Development and selection of specific metrics to measure implementation, efficiency, 

effectiveness, and the impact of the security controls.
16

The process steps do not need to be sequential. Rather, the process illustrated in Figure 4-1 

provides a framework for thinking about metrics and facilitates the identification of metrics to be 

developed for each system. The type of metric depends on where the system is within its life 

cycle and the maturity of the IT system security program. This framework facilitates tailoring 

metrics to a specific organization and to the different stakeholder groups present within each 

organization.

4.1.1 Stakeholder Interest Identification

In Phase 1 of the metrics development process (see Figure 4-1), anyone within an organization 

should be an IT security stakeholder, though some functions have a greater stake in security than 

others. The primary IT security stakeholders are?

• Head of Agency

• Chief Information Officer (CIO)

• Security Program Manager/Information System Security Officer (ISSO)

• Program Manager/System Owner

• System Security Officer

• System Administrator/Network Administrator

• IT Support Personnel.

The secondary security stakeholders are members of organizational entities that do not have 

security as their primary mission but touch security in some aspects of their operations. 

Examples of secondary security stakeholders include?

• Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

• Training Organization

• Human Resources/Personnel Organization

• Inspectors General (IG).

The interests of each stakeholder will differ, depending on the security aspects of their role and 

on their position within the organizational hierarchy. Each stakeholder may require an additional 

set of customized metrics that provides a view of the organization’s IT security performance 

within their area of responsibility. Stakeholder interests may be determined through multiple 

venues, such as interviews, brainstorming sessions, and mission statement reviews. The total 

number of metrics should be between five and ten for each individual stakeholder. It is 

recommended that fewer metrics per stakeholder be used when an organization is establishing a 
17

security program; the number of metrics per stakeholder will increase gradually with the 

maturity of the IT security program and of the metrics program. 

Stakeholders should be involved in each step of security metrics development to ensure 

organizational buy-in to the concept of measuring security performance. Stakeholder 

involvement will also ensure that the sense of ownership of the system security metrics exists at 

multiple levels of the organization to encourage the overall success of the program.

The four measurable aspects of IT security (business input, efficiency, effectiveness, and 

implementation) speak to different stakeholders. While an executive will be interested in the 

business and mission impact of IT security activities (e.g., what is the monetary and public trust 

cost of the latest incident or is there an article about us in a major newspaper?), security and 

program managers will be interested in the effectiveness and efficiency of IT security programs 

(e.g., could we have prevented the incident and how fast did we respond to it?), and the system 

or network administrators will want to know what went wrong (e.g., have we performed all 

necessary steps to avoid or minimize the impact of the incident?).

4.1.2 Goals and Objectives Definition

Phase 2 of the metrics development process (see Figure 4-1) is to identify and document system 

security performance goals and objectives that would guide security control implementation for 

that system. System security goals and objectives for federal government systems are expressed 

in the form of high-level policies and requirements, laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, 

including?

• Clinger-Cohen Act

• Presidential Decision Directives

• FISMA

• OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III

• NIST Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and Special Publications.

The sample metrics contained in Appendix A use the NIST 800-26 critical elements and 

subordinate questions as specific security performance goals and objectives, respectively. 

However, other documents can be used as sources of applicable system security goals and 

objectives, when appropriate.

Applicable documents should be reviewed to identify and extract applicable security 

performance goals and objectives. The extracted goals and objectives should be validated with 

the organizational stakeholders to ensure stakeholder acceptance and participation in the metrics 

development process. Appendix A provides samples of IT security metrics with corresponding 

goals and objectives.
18

4.1.3 IT Security Policies, Guidance, and Procedures Review

The details of how security controls should be implemented are usually described in 

organization-specific policies and procedures (Phase 3) that define a baseline of security 

practices that are prescribed for the system. Specifically, they describe security control 

objectives and techniques that should lead to accomplishing system security performance goals 

and objectives. These documents should be examined during initial development and in future 

metrics development when the initial list of metrics is exhausted and needs to be replaced with 

other metrics. The applicable documents should be reviewed to identify prescribed practices, 

applicable targets of performance, and detailed security controls for system operations and 

maintenance. 

4.1.4 System Security Program Implementation Review

In Phase 4 of the metrics development process (see Figure 4-1), any existing metrics and data 

repositories that can be used to derive metrics data should be reviewed. Following the review, 

applicable information should be extracted and used to identify appropriate implementation 

evidence that will support metrics development and data collection. Implementation evidence 

points to aspects of IT security controls that would be indicative of the security performance 

objective being met, or at least that actions leading to the accomplishment of the performance 

objective in the future are performed. The system security requirements, processes, and 

procedures that have been implemented can be extracted by consulting multiple sources, 

including documents, interviews, and observation. The following sources may contain 

information from which metrics data can be generated:

• System Security Plans

• FISMA OMB Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) reports 

• Latest GAO and IG findings

• Tracking of security-related activities, such as incident handling and reporting, testing, 

network management, audit logs, and network and system billing

• Risk assessments and penetration testing results

• C&A documentation (e.g., security test and evaluation [ST&E] reports)

• Contingency Plans

• Configuration Management Plans

• Training results and statistics.

As system security practices evolve and the documents describing them change, the existing 

metrics will be retired and new metrics developed. To ensure that the newly developed metrics 
19

are appropriate, these documents and other similar documents will need to be examined to 

identify new areas to be captured in metrics.

4.1.5 Metrics Development and Selection

Phases 5, 6, and 7, depicted in Figure 4-1, involve developing metrics that measure process 

implementation, effectiveness and efficiency, and mission impact. The specific aspect of IT 

security that metrics will focus on at a given point in time will depend on the security 

effectiveness level, as defined in NIST SP 800-26. Appendix A, Sample IT Security Metrics, 

suggests measures that can be implemented based on the critical elements contained in the 17 IT 

security topic areas. Implementation evidence, required to prove higher levels of effectiveness, 

will change from establishing existence of policy and procedures, to quantifying implementation 

of these policies and procedures, then to quantifying results of implementation of policies and 

procedures, and ultimately, to identifying impact of implementation on the organization’s 

mission.

The universe of possible metrics, based on existing policies and procedures, will be quite large. 

Metrics must be prioritized to ensure that the final set selected for initial implementation has the 

following qualities:

• Facilitates improvement of high-priority security control implementation. High priority 

may be defined by the latest GAO or IG reports, results of a risk assessment, or internal 

organizational goal.

• Uses data that can realistically be obtained from existing processes and data repositories.

• Measures processes that already exist and are relatively stable. Measuring nonexistent or 

unstable processes will not provide meaningful information about security performance 

and will therefore not be useful for targeting specific aspects of performance. On the 

other hand, attempting such measurement may not be entirely useless, because such a 

metric will certainly produce poor results and will therefore identify an area that requires 

improvement. 

Agencies may decide to use a weighting scale to differentiate importance of selected metrics and 

to ensure that the results accurately reflect existing security program priorities. This would 

involve assigning values to each metric based on the importance of a metric in the context of the 

overall security program. Metrics weighting should be based on the overall risk mitigation goals 

and is likely to reflect higher criticality of department-level initiatives versus smaller scale 

initiatives and is a useful tool that facilitates integration of IT security metrics into the 

departmental capital planning process.

A phased approach may be required to identify short-, mid-, and long-term metrics in which the 

implementation time frame depends on a combination of system-level effectiveness, metric 

priority, data availability, and process stability. Once applicable metrics that contain the 

qualities described above are identified, they will need to be documented in the Metric Detail 

Form in Table 4-1. 
20

Performance 

Goal

State the desired results of implementing one or several system security control 

objectives/techniques that are measured by the metric. When using NIST SP 800-26, this 

item will list a critical element, as stated in 800-26.

Performance 

Objective3

State the actions that are required to accomplish the performance goal. When using NIST SP 

800-26, this item will list one or more subordinate questions, as stated in 800-26. Multiple 

performance objectives can correspond to a single performance goal.

Metric

Define the metric by describing the quantitative measurement(s) provided by the metric. Use 

a numeric statement that begins with the words “percentage,” “number,” “frequency,” 

“average,” or other similar terms.

Purpose Describe the overall functionality obtained by collecting the metric. Include whether a metric 

will be used for internal performance measurement or external reporting, what insights are 

hoped to be gained from the metric, regulatory or legal reasons for collecting a specific 

metric if such exist, or other similar items.

Implementation 

Evidence

List proof of the security controls’ existence that validates implementation. Implementation 

evidence is used to calculate the metric, as indirect indicators that validate that the activity is 

performed, and as causation factors that may point to the causes of unsatisfactory results for a 

specific metric. (Sections 4.1.3, IT Security Policies, Guidance, and Procedures Review;

4.1.4, System Security Program Implementation Review; and 4.1.5, Metrics Development 

and Selection, contain a discussion of what information can be used to identify appropriate 

implementation evidence for individual metrics. Section 5.2, Collect Data and Analyze 

Results, contains a discussion and a list of common causation factors.)

Frequency Propose time periods for collection of data that is used for measuring changes over time. 

Suggest time periods based on likely updates occurring in the control implementation. 

(Section 4.3, Feedback Within Metrics Development Process, contains a discussion on the 

frequency of metric data collection.)

Formula Describe the calculation to be performed that results in a numeric expression of a metric. The 

information gathered through listing implementation evidence serves as an input into the 

formula for calculating the metric.

Data Source List the location of the data to be used in calculating the metric. Include databases, tracking 

tools, organizations, or specific roles within organizations that can provide required 

information. (Section 3.4.3, Data Management Concerns, contains a discussion on metrics 

data sources.)

Indicators Provide information about the meaning of the metric and its performance trend. Propose 

possible causes of trends identified through measurement and point at possible solutions to 

correct the observed shortcomings. State the performance target if it has been set for the 

metric and indicate what trends would be considered positive in relation to the performance 

target. (Section 4.2, Establishing Performance Targets, contains a discussion about the 

relationship of performance targets and the indicators.) Describe how the information 

gathered through listing implementation evidence is to be used as input into the analysis of 

indicators. The implementation evidence serves for validating performance of security 

activities and pinpointing causation factors.

Table 4-1. Metric Detail Form

 

3

 When using NIST SP 800-26 subordinate questions, more than one subordinate question can be handled within a single metric.
21

4.2 Establishing Performance Targets

After applicable metrics are identified and described, performance targets should be identified in 

the indicator line of the metric form. Performance targets establish a goal by which success is 

measured. The degree of success is based on the metric result’s proximity to the stated 

performance target. The mechanics of establishing performance targets differ for 

implementation metrics and the other three types of metrics (effectiveness, efficiency, and 

impact). For implementation metrics, targets are set to 100 percent completion of specific tasks. 

When implementation metrics that correspond to all NIST SP 800-26 critical elements reach the 

target of 100 percent completion, the organization has reached Level 3, depicted in Figure 3-1.

Setting performance targets for efficiency, effectiveness, and impact metrics is more complex, 

because these aspects of security operation do not assume a specific level of performance. 

Management will need to apply qualitative and subjective reasoning to determine appropriate 

levels of security effectiveness and efficiency and to use these levels as targets of performance 

for applicable metrics. Although all organizations desire effective implementation of security 

controls, efficient delivery of security services, and minimal impact of security events on its 

mission, the associated measurements will be different for different systems. An organization 

can attempt to establish performance targets for these metrics and should be ready to adjust these 

targets, based on actual measurements, once they are obtained. The organization may also decide 

not to set targets for these metrics until the first measurement is collected that can be used as a 

performance baseline. Once the baseline is obtained and corrective actions identified, 

appropriate measurement targets and implementation milestones can be defined that are realistic 

for a specific system environment. If performance targets cannot be established after the 

baseline has been obtained, management should evaluate whether the measured activities and 

corresponding metrics are providing expected value for the organization.

Establishment of effectiveness, efficiency, and impact metrics baselines and targets of 

performance can be facilitated if historic data that pertains to these metrics is available. Trends 

observed in the past will provide insight into ranges of performance that have existed previously 

and guide the creation of realistic targets for the future. In the future, expert recommendations 

and standards within the industry may provide a means of setting targets when these are 

published. Figure 4-2 provides an example of an IT security metric trend, based on the 

percentage of approved security plans.
22

Percentage of Approved Security Plans

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Oct-01 Apr-02 Oct-02 Apr-03 Oct-03

Figure 4-2. IT Security Metric Trend Example

4.3 Feedback Within Metrics Development Process

The metrics that are ultimately selected for implementation will be useful not only for measuring 

performance, identifying causes of unsatisfactory measurements, and pinpointing improvement 

areas, but also for facilitating continuous policy implementation, effecting security policy 

changes, and redefining goals and objectives. This relationship is depicted by the feedback 

arrows in Figure 4-1, which are marked as Goal/Objective Redefinition, Policy Update, and 

Continuous Implementation. Once the measurement of security control implementation 

commences, subsequent measurements can be used to identify performance trends and ascertain 

whether the rate of implementation is appropriate. A specific frequency of each metric 

collection will depend on the life cycle of a measured event. A metric that pertains to the 

percentage of completed or updated security plans should not be collected more often than 

semiannually. A metric that pertains to crackable passwords should be collected at least 

monthly. Continuous measurement will point to continuous implementation of applicable 

security controls. Once effectiveness and efficiency metrics are implemented, they will facilitate 

an understanding of whether the security control performance goals, set in the security policies 

and procedures, are realistic and appropriate.

For example, if a security policy defines a specific password configuration, compliance with this 

policy could be determined by measuring the percent of passwords that are configured according 

to the policy. This measure addresses the level of security control implementation. It is assumed 

that configuring all passwords according to the policy will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, 

system compromises through broken passwords. To measure effectiveness of the existing 

password policy implementation, the percent of crackable passwords (by common passwordbreaking tools) could be identified. This measure addresses the effectiveness of the security 
23

control as implemented. If a significant percent of crackable passwords remain after the required 

password policy has been implemented, the logical conclusion is that the underlying policy may 

be ineffective in thwarting password compromises. If so, an organization will need to consider 

strengthening the policy or implementing some other mitigating measures. An organization will 

then need to determine costs and benefits of keeping the password policy as is, tightening it, or 

replacing password authentication with other techniques. Conducting cost-benefit analyses will 

generate business impact metrics that will address the issue of redefining system identification 

and authentication objectives and appropriately realigning these objectives with the system 

mission. 
24

5. METRICS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of IT security metrics involves using IT security metrics for monitoring IT 

security control performance and using the results of the monitoring to initiate performance 

improvement actions. The iterative process consists of six phases, which, when fully executed, 

will ensure continuous use of IT security metrics for security control performance monitoring 

and improvement. The IT security metrics program implementation process is depicted in Figure 

5-1. 

Figure 5-1. IT Security Metrics Program Implementation Process

5.1 Prepare for Data Collection

Phase 1 of the process, Prepare for Data Collection, involves activities that are key for 

establishing a comprehensive IT security metrics program, including the IT security metrics 

identification, definition, development, and selection activities, described in Section 4.1, and 

developing a metrics program implementation plan.

After the metrics have been identified, specific implementation steps should be defined on how 

to collect, analyze, and report the metrics. These steps should be documented in the Metrics 

Program Implementation Plan. The following items may be included in the plan: 

• Metrics roles and responsibilities, including responsibilities for data collection (both 

soliciting and submitting), analysis, and reporting

• Audience for the plan

• Process of metrics collection, analysis, and reporting, tailored to the specific 

organizational structure, processes, policies, and procedures

• Details of coordination within the Office of the CIO, such as with risk assessment, C&A, 

and FISMA reporting activities
25

• Details of coordination between the Office of the CIO and other functions within the 

agency, external to the CIO (e.g., information assurance [IA], if it is separate from the 

CIO; physical security; personnel security; and critical infrastructure protection [CIP]) to 

ensure the metrics data collection is streamlined and nonintrusive

• Creation or selection of data collection and tracking tools

• Modifications of data collection and tracking tools

• Metrics summary reporting formats.

5.2 Collect Data and Analyze Results

Phase 2 of the process, Collect Data and Analyze Results, involves activities that are essential for 

ensuring that the collected metrics are used to gain an understanding of system security and to 

identify appropriate improvement actions. This phase includes the following activities:

• Collect metrics data, according to the processes defined in the Metrics Program 

Implementation Plan

• Consolidate collected data and store in a format conducive to data analysis and 

reporting, for example, in a database or a spreadsheet

• Conduct gap analysis - compare collected measurements with targets, if defined, and 

identify gaps between actual and desired performance

• Identify causes of poor performance

• Identify areas requiring improvement.

The causes of poor performance can often be identified using the data from more than one 

metric. For example, determining that the percentage of approved security plans is unacceptably 

low would not be helpful for determining how to correct the problem. To determine the cause of 

low compliance, information will need to be collected regarding the reasons for low percentages 

(e.g., lack of guidance, insufficient expertise, or conflicting priorities). This information can be 

collected as separate metrics or as implementation evidence for the percentage of approved 

security plans. Once this information is collected and compiled, corrective actions could be 

targeted at the cause of the problem.

The following are examples of causation factors, contributing to poor security control 

implementation and effectiveness:

• Resources - Insufficient human, monetary, or other resources

• Training - Lack of appropriate training for the personnel installing, administering, 

maintaining, or using the systems
26

• System Upgrades - Security patches that have been removed but not replaced during the 

operating system upgrades

• Configuration Management Practices - New or upgraded systems that are not configured 

with required security settings and patches

• Software Compatibility - Security patches or upgrades that are incompatible with 

software applications supported by the system

• Awareness and Commitment - Lack of management awareness and/or commitment to 

security 

• Policies and Procedures - Lack of policies and procedures that are required to ensure 

existence, use, and audit of required security functions

• Architectures - Poor system and security architectures that make systems vulnerable

• Inefficient processes - Inefficient planning processes that influence the metrics (including 

communication processes necessary to direct organizational actions).

5.3 Identify Corrective Actions

Phase 3 of the process, Identify Corrective Actions, involves the development of a plan that will 

provide the roadmap of how to close the implementation gap identified in Phase 2. This phase 

includes the following activities:

• Determine range of corrective actions - Based on the results and causation factors, 

identify corrective actions that could be applied to each performance issue. Corrective 

actions may include changing system configurations; training security staff, system 

administrator staff, or regular users; purchasing security tools; changing system 

architecture; establishing new processes and procedures; and updating security policies.

• Prioritize corrective actions based on overall risk mitigation goals - There may be several 

corrective actions, applicable to a single performance issue; however, some may be 

inappropriate if they are inconsistent with the magnitude of the problem or too costly. 

Applicable corrective actions should be prioritized for each performance issue in the 

ascending order of cost and descending order of impact. The risk management process, 

described in NIST SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology 

Systems, should be used for prioritizing corrective actions. If weights were assigned to 

metrics in the Prepare for Data Collection phase, these weights should be used to 

prioritize corrective actions. Alternatively, weights may be assigned to corrective actions 

in the Identify Corrective Actions phase based on the criticality of implementing specific 

corrective actions, cost of corrective actions, and the magnitude of corrective actions’ 

impact on the organization’s security posture.
27

• Select most appropriate corrective actions - Up to three corrective actions from the top of 

the list of prioritized corrective actions should be selected for conducting a full costbenefit analysis.

5.4 Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources

Phases 4 and 5, Develop Business Case and Obtain Resources, respectively, address the 

budgeting cycle required for obtaining resources required for implementing remediation actions 

identified in Phase 3. The steps involved in developing a business case are based on industry 

practices and mandated guidance, including OMB Circular A-11, the Clinger-Cohen Act, and 

GPRA. The results of the prior three phases will be included in the business case as supporting 

evidence. The following activities should be performed as a part of business case analysis:

• Document mission and its objectives, identified during Phase 2 of the metrics 

development process

• Determine the cost of maintaining status quo to use as the baseline for comparing 

investment alternatives

• Document gaps between target performance and current measurements, identified during 

Phase 2 of the metrics program implementation process

• Estimate life-cycle cost for each corrective action or investment alternative, identified in 

Phase 3 of the metrics program implementation process

• Perform sensitivity analysis to discern which variables have the greatest effect on the 

cost4

• Characterize benefits that are quantifiable and nonquantifiable returns that are delivered 

through improved performance, based on the prioritization of corrective actions 

performed in Phase 3 of the metrics program implementation process

• Perform risk analysis to take into account the likelihood of obstacles and programmatic 

risks of a particular alternative

• Prepare budget submission by summarizing key aspects of the business case to accurately 

depict its merits.

Each agency should follow agency-specific business case guidance during this phase of the 

process. Typically, the components and analysis of the business will allow an easier completion 

of internal and external budget requests. A thorough examination of the business case will 

 

4

 If a small change in the value of a variable causes a large change in the calculation result, the result is said to be sensitive to that 

parameter or assumption.
28

support and facilitate the obtaining resources process. The obtaining resources phase involves 

the following activities:

• Responding to budget evaluation inquiries

• Receiving allocated budget

• Prioritizing available resources, assuming that not all requested resources will be 

allocated

• Assigning resources to perform corrective actions.

5.5 Apply Corrective Actions

Phase 6 of the process, Apply Corrective Actions, involves implementing corrective actions in 

technical, management, and operational areas of security controls. After corrective actions are 

applied, the cycle completes itself and restarts with a subsequent data collection and analysis. 

Iterative data collection, analysis, and reporting will track progress of corrective actions, measure 

improvement, and identify areas for further improvement. The iterative nature of the cycle 

ensures that the progress is monitored and the corrective actions are affecting system security 

control implementation in an intended way. Frequent performance measurements will ensure 

that if corrective actions are not implemented as planned, or if their effect is not as desired, quick 

course corrections can be made, internally to the organization, therefore avoiding problems being 

discovered during external audits, C&A efforts, or other similar activities.
A-1

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE IT SECURITY METRICS 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-26, Security 

Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, identifies 17 Information 

Technology (IT) security topics that affect the security posture of an organization. This 

appendix provides an example of each critical element, formatted according to the metrics form 

introduced in Section 4.1.5. Each metric in this appendix can be used as a stand-alone measure 

or as part of a set of metrics; if the metrics are used as a set, redundant questions that apply to 

multiple metrics do not need to be repeated. The metrics can be used as is or customized to 

measure the effectiveness of the security controls. Many of the sample metrics contain a 

comment section that suggests ways to change the metrics to gather additional information, or 

explains why certain questions were asked.

The implementation evidence supporting the metrics in this appendix may be collected at the 

system level or at the program level. In some samples, the first part of the metric is capturing 

data at the program level, then specific questions are asked at the system level. This approach is 

used to show how the metrics can be aggregated. When gathering metric data at the system 

level, the program-level questions should be omitted or reworded to capture information 

applicable to a single system. For metrics that ask for a percentage, the result of the formula 

should be multiplied by a hundred to produce a percentage value.

This appendix includes some metrics that were required by OMB in the 2003 FISMA reporting 

guidance. Table A-1 provides a quick reference guide for finding specific metrics that directly 

correspond to the 2003 OMB FISMA guidance questions. Please note that OMB FISMA metrics 

require both numbers and percentages for some or just numbers for other metrics. While the 

table lists all metrics as percentages, the raw number answers to the OMB FISMA metrics are 

contained in numerators and denominators of formulas. The table specifically points out those 

metrics for which OMB required raw numbers without percentages and states in a few cases 

whether numerator or denominator of the metric should be used for response. 

Critical 

Element

Metric OMB Guidance 

Reference

1.1 Percentage of systems that had formal risk assessments 

performed and documented

I.C.1.c

2.1 Percentage of total systems for which security controls have 

been tested and evaluated in the past year

I.C.1.g

3.1 Percentage of total systems that have the costs of their security 

controls integrated into the life cycle of the system

I.C.1.f

4.1 Percentage of total systems that have been authorized for 

processing following certification and accreditation

I.C.1.e 

5.2 Percentage of current security plans I.C.1.d

9.2 Percentage of systems that have a contingency plan I.C.1.h
A-2

Critical 

Element

Metric OMB Guidance 

Reference

9.3 Percentage of systems for which contingency plans have been 

tested in the past year

I.C.1.i

13.1 Percentage of employees with significant security 

responsibilities who have received specialized training

I.C.3.c (denominator) and 

I.C.3.d (numerator)

14.1 Percentage of agency components with incident handling and 

response capability

I.B.8.c (numerator)

14.2 Number of incidents reported externally to FedCIRC or law 

enforcement

I.B.9.c

Table A-1. OMB FISMA Metrics Reference
A-3

A.1 Risk Management

Critical Element 1.1 Is risk periodically assessed?

Subordinate 

Question

1.1.2 Are risk assessments performed and documented on a regular basis or 

whenever the system, facilities or other conditions change?

Metric Percentage of systems that had formal risk assessments performed and documented

Purpose To quantify the number of risk assessments completed in relation to the 

organization’s requirements. 

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? _____

3. Of the systems in your current inventory, how many systems have had risk 

assessments performed and documented in the following time frames? (Select the 

nearest time frame for each system; do not count the same system in more than one 

time frame.) 

Within past 12 months_____ Within past 2 years_____ Within past 3 years_____ 

4. For any system that underwent a risk assessment, list the number of systems after 

the reason(s) that apply:

Scheduled risk assessment_____ Major change in system environment_____ 

Major change in facilities_____ Change in other conditions (specify) _____

5. For any system that has not undergone a risk assessment in the past 3 years, list 

the number of systems after the reason(s) that apply:

No policy _____ No resources____ System tier level does not require _____

System previously not defined____ New system _____ 

Other (specify) ______________ 

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula At agency level: Sum of risk assessments on file for each time frame (Question 3) / 

IT systems in inventory (inventory database) (Question 2)5

 

5 For metrics that ask for a percentage the result of the formula should be multiplied by a hundred to produce a percentage value.
A-4

Data Source Inventory of IT systems that includes all major applications and general support 

systems; risk assessment repository

Indicators This metric computes the percentage of systems that have undergone risk 

assessments over the last three years (which is normally the required maximum time 

interval for conducting risk assessments). To establish the distribution of time for 

risk assessment completion, the number of systems listed for each time frame is 

computed. The total within three years should equal 100 percent of all required 

systems. Systems that are not receiving regular risk assessments are likely to be 

exposed to threats. Question 4 is used to validate the reasons for conducting risk 

assessments and to ensure that all systems are accounted. Question 5 is included to 

determine the reason risk assessments were not performed. Defining the cause will 

direct management attention to the appropriate corrective actions. By documenting 

and tracking these factors, changes can be made to improve performance by updating 

the security policy, directing resources, or ensuring that new systems are assessed for 

risk as required.

Comments: A number of additional metrics may be created to ascertain the number of systems 

that have undergone risk assessments after a major change, a number of systems that have 

undergone risk assessments during the last year, a number of systems that have undergone risk 

assessments during the last year after a major change, and others. This information can be 

tracked separately to ensure that this requirement is met and that system changes are monitored 

and responded to appropriately in a timely manner. A system may have had a risk assessment 

within the past two years, but if a major change has occurred since then, an additional risk 

assessment is required to ensure that information about the system’s vulnerabilities and exposure 

to risk is updated and the risk managed.
A-5

Critical Element 1.2 Do program officials understand the risk to systems under their control and 

determine the acceptable level of risk?

Subordinate 

Question

1.2.1 Are final risk determinations and related management approvals documented 

and maintained on file?

Metric Percentage of systems that have had risk levels reviewed by management

Purpose To quantify the degree of management involvement in the completion of risk 

assessments through the review of findings and concurrence or non-concurrence with 

the findings

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? ________

2. How many IT systems have been assessed for risk during the last reporting period? 

_____.

3. How many risk findings were discovered for all risk assessments conducted in the 

reporting period? ________

4. How many risk findings were concurred by management? ________

5. How many risk findings were non-concurred by management? ________

6. Are management approvals recorded and tracked? 

? Yes ? No

Frequency Annually, semiannually 

Formula Sum of concurred and non-concurred findings (Question 4 + Question 5) / Total 

number of findings (Question 3)

Data Source Inventory of IT systems that includes all major applications and general support 

systems; risk assessment repository; Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M)

Indicators This metric monitors management involvement in the risk management process. The 

target for this metric is to have management review and take appropriate actions 

through concurrence or non-concurrence with 100 percent of the risk findings. 

Management must ensure that resources are available to implement the required 

capabilities in order to secure information systems as needed. Through 

management’s acknowledgment of risk and concurrence and non-concurrence with 

findings, risk findings can be appropriately prioritized to ensure that remedial actions 

occur as the results of risk assessments are placed into the decision-making process 

and formally into a POA&M. While non-concurred findings are not likely to be 

implemented, the fact that management reviewed and non-concurred with the 

findings demonstrates that management has assessed and knowingly accepted 

residual risk.
A-6

Comments: Questions 1 and 2 are included to determine whether risk findings are formally 

available for management review. These questions identify the input that will enable 

management to be involved in the risk management process. Question 6 validates that 

management approvals are recorded, to help ascertain the reliability of the metric result. Without 

a formal record, accountability for management’s review of and decisions on risk findings is 

absent.
A-7

A.2 Security Controls

Critical Element 2.1 Have the security controls of the system and interconnected systems been 

reviewed?

Subordinate 

Question

2.1.4 Are tests and examinations of key controls routinely made, i.e., network scans, 

analyses of router and switch settings, penetration testing?

Metric Percentage of total systems for which security controls have been tested and 

evaluated in the past year

Purpose To measure level of compliance with requirement for system security control testing

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current system inventory? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? _____

3. For how many systems were system security controls tested in the past year? 

_____

4. How many systems have used the following testing methods in the past year to 

evaluate security controls:

Automated tools (e.g., password cracking and war dialing) _____

Penetration testing _____

Security test and evaluation (ST&E) ______

System audits ______

Risk assessments _______

Other (specify) _____

5. How many systems were tested using any of the methods in Question 4 in the 

following time frames? (Choose the nearest time frame for each system; do not count 

the same system in more than time fame.)

Within the past quarter _____ 

Within the past 6 months _____

Within the past 12 months _____

6. Are all testing instances and results recorded? 

? Yes ? No
A-8

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems with controls tested (Question 3) / Total number of systems in 

the inventory (Question 2)

Data Source OMB Exhibits 53 and 300; budget office; audits; C&A database; automated tool 

reports; system testing logs/records

Indicators The percentage trend should increase and approach or equal 100 percent. Overall, it 

is important that security controls be tested once they are in place to make sure they 

are working as proposed. As changes occur within the security environment, the 

necessary controls also may change. To keep the control current and appropriate for 

the system, regular control testing and evaluation should be conducted.

Comments: This metric determines whether security controls are tested for each system. This 

data must be gathered from audit results or directly from system owners. Data validity depends 

on the availability of a data source that can be determined to reliably record when system tests 

are conducted. Question 6 addresses the existence of a formal record of testing.

Question 4 validates the use of verifiable testing methods. Question 5 determines the actual 

frequency of testing to view the distribution of testing over time. If policies are in place to 

designate testing types and frequency for various types of systems, it is advisable to track 

evidence of testing through a central compliance and results database.
A-9

Critical Ele ment 2.2 Does management ensure that corrective actions are effectively implemented?

Subordinate 

Question

2.2.1 Is there an effective and timely process for reporting significant weakness and 

ensuring effective remedial action?

Metric The average time elapsed between vulnerability or weakness discovery and 

implementation of corrective action

Purpose Measures the efficiency of closing significant system weaknesses to evaluate the 

existence, and the timeliness and effectiveness, of a process for implementing 

corrective actions

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Do you have a tracking system for weakness discovery and remediation 

implementation? 

? Yes ? No

2. How many system weaknesses were discovered within the reporting period (count 

all weaknesses that were opened and closed within the reporting period)? ___

3. How many weaknesses discovered within the reporting period were closed in—

30 days _____

60 days _____

90 days _____

180 days _____

12 months _____

Remain open _____

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually

Formula (Number of weaknesses x 30 + number of weaknesses x 60 + number of weaknesses 

x 90 + number of weaknesses x 180 + number of weaknesses x 365) (individual 

answers to Question 3)/ Total number of weaknesses closed (Sum of all answers to 

Question 3)

Data Source Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) tracking system

Indicators A target time must be set for corrective action implementation. Results should be 

compared to this target. The trend for corrective action implementation/weakness 

closure should be toward shorter time frames, as management becomes more aware 

of applicable processes. Also, efficiencies are likely to be gained from the increasing 

experience of personnel and the institutionalization of a formal remedial action 

process. It should be noted that some corrective actions may require an extended 

period of time to implement.
A-10

Comments: This metric determines whether weaknesses are being corrected in a timely manner. 

This data must be gathered from auditing results or from risk assessment findings that are 

reported in the POA&M. Data validity depends on the availability of a data source that can be 

determined to reliably record when weaknesses are discovered and resolved. If no data source 

exists, it will be difficult to set a realistic time frame for corrective action. A baseline time frame 

should be pilot tested before a specific (target) time frame is set. In addition, if incidents occur 

as a result of an open weakness, new time frame targets should be established for closing 

weaknesses of a certain category.

Question 3 is used to identify the time span in which the majority of weaknesses are closed. 

Even though a few weaknesses may take a longer time to resolve, which will influence the 

average, the distribution of resolution time for most weaknesses can still provide insight into 

performance in relation to the targeted time frame. The metric also can be expanded to describe 

the types of weaknesses and to correlate them with time periods to discover where there is a 

dependency between a weakness type and an average closure time. 
A-11

A.3 System Development Life Cycle

Critical Element 3.1 Has a system development life cycle (SDLC) methodology been developed?

Subordinate 

Question

3.1.2 Does the business case document the resources required for adequately securing 

the system? 

3.1.3 Does the Investment Review Board ensure investment requests include the 

security resources needed?

Metric Percentage of systems that have the costs of their security controls integrated into the 

life cycle of the system

Purpose To quantify the percentage of systems that are in compliance with the OMB 

requirement for integrating security costs into the system life cycle

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems are there in your organization (or agency component, as 

applicable)? ________

2. Do you have a formal, documented SDLC? 

? Yes ? No 

3. If the answer to Question 2 is no, why not? 

? Unaware of requirement ? Lack of resources ? Competing priorities ? 

Other (specify) ___________________

4. Does the SDLC track the cost of security controls? 

? Yes ? No

5. Does the SDLC process incorporate the cost of security at every step as required?

? Yes ? No

6. How many systems are in or went through the SDLC? ____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems that have gone through (or are going through) SDLC (Question 

6) /Number of systems (Question 1)

Data Source Budget process data (OMB Exhibit 300); review of security plans

Indicators The goal for this metric is to show an upward trend. High percentage would show 

that security resources are allocated for each system during the life cycle.

Comments: The implementation evidence for this metric should provide sufficient information 

to identify why an SDLC has not been developed in those agencies or agency components that 
A-12

answer “no” to Question 2. Question 6 provides the number of systems that have been 

completed or are in the midst of an SDLC. The percentage of systems undergoing or completing 

an SDLC is calculated by using the formula (Question 6 response divided by response to 

Question 1). Questions 2, 4, and 5 qualify the organization’s eligibility to report a positive result 

for this metric. A negative answer to any of these questions makes this metric invalid. Question 

4 indicates a possible means of obtaining the cost of security controls.
A-13

Critical Element 3.2 Are changes controlled as programs progress through testing to final approval?

Subordinate 

Question

3.2.5 If security controls were added since development, have the security controls 

been tested and the system recertified?

Metric Percentage of systems recertified if security controls are added or modified after the 

system was developed

Purpose To measure compliance with a requirement for system review and recertification 

when security controls are added or modified after the system’s development

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Are system changes documented through a configuration management process?

? Yes ? No

2. Number of systems that have had changes in security controls since development 

______

3. Number of systems with changes in security controls that have been recertified 

since implementation _____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems with security control changes recertified (Question 3) / Number 

of systems with security control changes since development (Question 2)

Data Source C&A tracking system; configuration management tracking 

Indicators The result for this metric should increase over time and approach 100 percent. 

Changes in security controls stand a risk of opening new vulnerabilities and may 

affect other dependent systems and controls. These changes, if significant, should be 

checked through a formal recertification process that involves ST&E to ensure that 

controls are working properly. Without formal processes for checking changes, 

unknown effects may occur across the system and interconnected systems.

Comments: Question 1 is included to validate that changes to systems are recorded and tracked 

through a formal process. Without formal tracking, the validity of the metric is suspect.
A-14

A.4 Authorize Processing (Certification and Accreditation)

Critical Element 4.1 Has the system been certified/recertified and authorized to process (accredited)?

Subordinate 

Question

4.1.8 Has management authorized interconnections to all systems including systems 

owned and operated by another program, agency, organization, or contractor?

Metric Percentage of total systems that have been authorized for processing following 

certification and accreditation

Purpose To determine the percentage of systems that are certified and accredited

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency (or agency component, as applicable) maintain a complete and 

up-to-date inventory of systems?

? Yes ? No

2. Is there a formal C&A process within your agency?

? Yes ? No

3. Is the answer to Question 2 is yes, does the C&A process require management to 

authorize interconnections to all systems?

? Yes ? No

4. Are interconnections to systems documented?

? Yes ? No

5. How many systems are registered in the system inventory? _____

6. How many systems have received full C&A? _____ 

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually

Formula Number of systems that have been certified and accredited (Question 6) / Total 

number of systems (Question 5) 

Data Source System inventory; C&A records

Indicators This metric measures the existence of, and compliance with, a C&A process. An 

upward trend for this metric is desirable; the goal is to have 100 percent of systems 

certified and accredited. C&A shows that the system has been thoroughly assessed 

for risk, and that an agency official accepts full responsibility for the security of a 

system.

Comments: The implementation evidence for this metric must be extracted by surveying the 

record custodians for system inventories and C&A documents or by direct query if these 

inventories and documents are stored in databases. Questions 3 and 4 are included because it is 

imperative that the C&A process review the system’s interconnections with other systems if the 
A-15

full scope of the system’s potential impact on other systems within the agency is to be assessed. 

Interconnections should be documented to ensure the traceability and accountability of the 

information used to evaluate systems for C&A. A negative answer to either of these questions 

makes this metric invalid.
A-16

Critical Element 4.2 Is the system operating on an interim authority to process in accordance with 

specified authority?

Subordinate 

Question

4.2.1 Has management initiated prompt action to correct deficiencies?

Metric Percentage of systems that are operating under an Interim Authority to Operate 

(IATO)

Purpose To examine the number of unaccredited systems and systems with IATO

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency (or agency component, as applicable) maintain a complete and 

up-to-date inventory of systems?

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component)? _____

3. How many systems are uncertified? _____ 

4. How many of the uncertified systems are operating with an IATO? ______ 

5. How many corrective actions for IATO systems were identified as required during 

the current reporting period? ______

6. How many corrective actions were implemented during the current reporting 

period? ______

7. For IATO systems that have not had corrective actions implemented within six 

months, list reasons for delay (check all that apply):

 Insufficient funds

 Lack of personnel

 Waiting on delivery of necessary components

 Competing priorities

 Waiting for internal approval to complete remedial actions

 Under Designated Approval Authority (DAA) review

 Other (specify) ______________

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually

Formula Number of systems operating with an Interim Authority to Operate (Question 4)/ 

Total number of systems in inventory (Question 2)
A-17

Data Source Security program manager; certification repository; computer security plans; change 

management process

Indicators A downward trend is necessary for this metric, and the goal is to have 0 percent of 

systems operating with IATO. The higher the number of systems with an IATO and 

the longer they operate under the provisions of an IATO, the greater a system’s 

exposure to security risks, which must be resolved to achieve full accreditation.

Comments: Questions 1 and 3 validate that the information is available to answer the other 

questions in the metric. Questions 5 and 6 are included to ensure that management is 

coordinating activities to correct system deficiencies promptly while an IATO exists. This will 

provide insight into the full functionality of the entire C&A process. Question 7 is included to 

determine the cause of delays in implementing necessary changes to achieve full accreditation. 

Once the causes are determined, appropriate actions can be taken to reduce the delays and 

achieve full accreditation.
A-18

A.5 System Security Plan

Critical Element 5.1 Is a system security plan documented for the system and all interconnected 

systems if the boundary controls are ineffective?

Subordinate 

Question

5.1.1 Is the system security plan approved by key affected parties and management?

Metric Percentage of systems with approved system security plans

Purpose To measure the degree to which system security plans are approved by management, 

which implies completion of a plan and the plan’s compliance with applicable 

requirements

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? _____

3. How many system security plans are completed? ___

4. How many system security plans contain all of the topics prescribed in NIST SP 

800-18? ________

5. How many system security plans have been approved by management? ____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of approved system security plans (Question 5)/ Total number of systems

Data Source System inventory and system documentation tracking system (Question 2)

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. An upward trend in the metric, nearing the 

100 percent target, is desirable. The completion of system security plans is a 

requirement of the OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information 

Resources, Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” 

and Public Law 100-235, Computer Security Act of 1987. System security plans 

should fully identify and describe the controls in place or planned for the system and 

should include a list of rules of behavior. Management approval of system security 

plans indicates that the required elements of an adequate system security plan have 

been completed to direct appropriate system security.

Comments: Questions 3 and 4 validate the completion of an acceptable system security plan; in 

addition, they could point to a lack of training for management if the number of system security 

plans approved by management exceeds the number of system security plans that contain all 

elements required by NIST SP 800-18.
A-19

Critical Element 5.2 Is the plan kept current?

Subordinate 

Question

5.2.1 Is the plan reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect current conditions and 

risks?

Metric Percentage of current security plans

Purpose To determine the currency of system security plans and to ensure that reviews take 

place periodically and that the plans are updated as necessary

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)?______

2. How many system security plans have been completed? ______

3. For the reporting period, how many system security plans have been reviewed and 

updated (if needed) within the following time frames? (Choose nearest time period 

for each system; do not count plan in more than one time period.)

Within past 6 months _______

6-12 months _______

1-2 years ________

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Sum of numbers of system security plans reviewed and updated (if needed) in each 

period (Question 3) / Total Number of completed system security plans (Question 2)

Data Source Inventory of IT systems that includes all major applications and general support 

systems; NIST SP 800-26 self-assessments; system documentation

Indicators A target time period should be set in each agency for annual review and update of 

system security plans. The number for each time period should be totaled and 

divided by the total number of system security plans. This calculation should meet 

100 percent of the requirement. There should be an upward trend toward 100 percent 

if targets are not met during a specific time frame. The validity of the completed 

system security plans is ascertained by collecting the information in Metric 5.1. 

Comments: This metric can be expanded by adding a question that would determine the reasons 

for security plans not being reviewed and approved as required.
A-20

A.6 Personnel Security

Critical Element 6.1 Are duties separated to ensure least privilege and individual accountability?

Subordinate 

Question

6.1.3 Are sensitive functions divided among different individuals?

Metric Percentage of systems compliant with the separation of duties requirement

Purpose To measure the level of compliance with the separation of duties requirement

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? _____

3. How many of these systems require in their security plan separation of duties to 

ensure least privilege and individual accountability? _____

4. How many of these systems have been validated to enforce this requirement? 

_____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems validated to enforce requirement (Question 4) /Number of 

systems that formally declare the requirement (Question 3)

Data Source Risk assessments repository; C&A repository 

Indicators The result for this metric should approach 100 percent to ensure that all systems are 

actually enforcing the separation of duties requirement. A low percentage indicates 

high-risk exposure because the same individuals are allowed to perform transactions 

that require separation of duties.

Comments: Questions 1 and 2 establish the basis for applying this metric. If the number of 

systems within the agency is unknown, the existence and enforcement of the separation of duties 

requirement cannot be validated. Question 3, which provides a direct input into the metric 

calculation, also validates that the separation of duties requirement is formally documented in the 

security plan.
A-21

Critical Element 6.2 Is appropriate background screening for assigned positions completed prior to 

granting access?

Subordinate 

Question

6.2.1 Are individuals who are authorized to bypass significant technical and 

operational controls screened prior to access and periodically thereafter?

Metric Percentage of users with special access to systems who have undergone background 

evaluations

Purpose To gauge the degree to which individuals with higher-level access (those who can 

bypass significant technical and operational controls) are screened before being 

granted such access

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Are records kept to identify individuals with higher-level access (those who can 

bypass significant technical and operational controls) to systems and networks?

? Yes ? No

2. Number of personnel who have special access (i.e., can bypass significant 

technical and operational controls) to systems ____

3. Number of personnel with special access to systems who have had background 

screenings completed_____

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Number of users with special access who have had background screenings completed 

(Question 3) / Number of users with special access to systems (Question 2)

Data Source Personnel database

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A low percentage for personnel with highlevel access who have undergone a background screening represents a higher 

potential risk of security incidents caused by internal personnel, who are the most 

common source of security breaches. 

Comments: The reliability of the information for this metric depends on the establishment of a 

trusted tracking mechanism that stores information on user privileges and background screening. 

An additional metric should be collected to gauge the frequency with which these “superusers” 

undergo background screening to ensure that the most up-to-date information is used to evaluate 

access levels.
A-22

A.7 Physical and Environmental Protection

Critical Element 7.1 Have adequate physical security controls been implemented that are 

commensurate with the risks of physical damage or access?

Subordinate 

Question

7.1.3 Are deposits and withdrawals of tapes and other storage media from the library 

authorized and logged?

Metric Percentage of information systems libraries that log the deposits and withdrawals of 

tapes

Purpose To determine the level of control exercised by the organization over accumulated 

data stored on tapes and other storage media and limit access to authorized users

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many media libraries exist within the organization? ____________

2. How many of the storage media deposited and checked out are accounted for in 

logs? _____

3. How many storage media are checked out by authorized personnel on the access 

control list? _____

4. How many libraries log deposited and checked out media? _____

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Number of libraries that log checkout and deposit events (Question 4) / Total number 

of media libraries (Question 1)

Data Source Media library logs; system librarian; ISSO

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A low percentage represents potential risk 

of data loss from security incidents caused by lack of control of data storage media. 

Comments: By establishing the number of data storage media in distribution (Question 2) and 

verifying that only appropriate personnel have access and are logging the location of the media 

(Question 3), control can be exerted over the withdrawal process for tapes and media.
A-23

Critical Ele ment 7.2 Is data protected from interception?

Subordinate 

Question

7.2.2 Is physical access to data transmission lines controlled?

Metric Percentage of data transmission facilities in the organization that have restricted 

access to authorized users

Purpose To determine what level of control is exercised by the organization over access to 

data transmission facilities

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many telecommunications closets/housings that hold data transmission lines 

are there within the organization? __________

2. How many telecommunications closets/housings that hold data transmission lines 

have physical access restrictions for all points of entry? _______

3. How many telecommunications closets/housings that hold data transmission lines 

use the following physical access restrictions?

? Lockable doors

? Keycard/Cipher card control

? Password/Keypad

? Biometrics

? Other (specify) ________

4. Is there an access control list of personnel authorized to access the 

telecommunications closets/housings?

? Yes ? No 

5. Is there a documented requirement for maintenance or other unauthorized 

personnel to be accompanied by internal authorized personnel if access is required?

? Yes ? No

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Total number of data transmission facilities with physical access restrictions for all 

points of entry (Question 2) / Total number of telecommunications facilities that 

house data transmission lines (Question 1) 

Data Source Facility security officers
A-24

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A low percentage represents greater 

potential risk from security incidents caused by lack of access control over 

telecommunications facilities. All points of entry must be restricted to truly 

safeguard the telecommunications facilities. 

Comments: Question 3 is included to determine the strength of the physical restrictions 

employed. Additional questions could be included to determine the number of 

telecommunications facilities that use multiple physical restriction mechanisms. Questions 4 and 

5 validate the existence and depth of procedures for maintaining an access control list for 

physical access and the depth of policy/procedures requiring all unauthorized individuals who 

may access the facility to be accompanied by authorized personnel.
A-25

Critical Element 7.3 Are mobile and portable systems protected?

Subordinate 

Question

7.3.2 Are sensitive data files encrypted on all portable systems?

Metric Percentage of laptops with encryption capability for sensitive files

Purpose To determine what level of control is exercised by the organization over access to 

sensitive information stored on laptops

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many laptops exist within the organization? __________

2. Is there a policy that requires encryption of sensitive data on laptops? 

? Yes ? No

3. How many laptops in the organization have encryption software installed? ______

4. Are laptops periodically reviewed to ensure that sensitive data is encrypted when 

stored

? Yes No

5. Are all laptop users given training in use of encryption software?

? Yes No

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually, as determined by the results of laptop audits

Formula Number of laptops with encryption capability (Question 3) / Total number of laptops 

(Question 1)

Data Source Capital asset manager; system inventories; software inventories; security officers; 

configuration management checklists

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A lower percentage represents greater 

potential risk of data loss caused by lack of encryption on laptops. The review of 

laptops for encrypted files (Question 4) is useful for ensuring that some level of 

encryption is occurring and that users are employing the security control. 

Pinpointing specific files that are sensitive may be too difficult to obtain a precise 

number.

Comments: Question 2 determines whether a policy has been issued that requires encrypting 

sensitive files on laptops. Without a documented requirement, implementation of encryption on 

laptops is less likely. Question 5 is included to determine whether the users understand how to 

use encryption on laptops. An additional metric will be required to determine whether the 

encryption capabilities are actually used to encrypt sensitive files stored on laptops.
A-26

A.8 Production, Input/Output Controls

Critical Element 8.1 Is there user support?

Subordinate 

Question

8.1.1 Is there a help desk or group that offers advice?

Metric Percentage of security-related user issues resolved immediately following the initial 

call

Purpose To quantify the rate of security-related user issue resolution by the help desk

Implementation 

Evidence

1. What is the primary method of direct user support available to answer questions 

regarding system functionality and system security controls?

? Help desk

? Network administrator

? Security officer

? Other (specify) ____________

2. What are the hours of availability of assistance?

? 24x7 service

? Weekday office hours only

? Weekday office hours plus some weekend and/or evening service

3. Are calls tracked? 

? Yes ? No 

4. How many security-related problems/trouble tickets were reported during the 

current reporting period? ______

5. How many security-related problems/trouble tickets were closed or resolved 

immediately following the initial call during the current reporting period? _____

6. Select the most appropriate reason(s) for not resolving security-related issues:

? Lack of help desk staff

? Help desk staff not familiar with security

? High-level subject matter expertise was required

7. When computer security assistance is needed, whom do you call? 
A-27

? Help desk ? System/Network administrator ? No one 

? Co-worker/Manager 

Frequency Annually, semiannually

Formula The number of security-related issues resolved (Question 5) / Number of securityrelated issues reported (Question 4)

Data Source A survey of several offices, help desk ticket tracking

Indicators This metric evaluates the effectiveness of help desk activities that are related to 

security. The metric requires the existence of user support personnel and tracking of 

issues reported/handled by this group. The percentage of security-related issues 

resolved immediately following the initial call should increase but realistically will 

never reach 100 percent because issues that require further assistance will always 

exist. The rate of resolution indicates the level of help desk staff’s proficiency in 

security-related issues and points at the reasons for the help desk staff’s inability to 

solve the majority of these issues immediately following the initial call. 

Comments: Question 1 qualifies the metric. Questions 2 and 3 categorize the availability of 

support to users. The less support available, the greater the likelihood that security incidents and 

misconfigurations will go unresolved. Question 6 points at the possible causes for lower than 

expected results for this metric. Question 7 assesses the extent to which the primary method of user 

support is actually used 
A-28

Critical Element 8.2 Are there media controls?

Subordinate 

Question

8.2.8 Is media sanitized for reuse?

Metric Percentage of used media sanitized before reuse or disposal

Purpose To determine whether media controls are being implemented as required by the entire 

agency or agency component and whether the risk of recovery of sensitive data is 

reduced by media sanitization

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Is there a policy for sanitizing media before they are discarded or reused? 

? Yes ? No

2. Number of media submitted for disposal or reuse _____

3. Number of media submitted for disposal or reuse that have been sanitized _____

4. If all media are not sanitized before being discarded or reused, check all reasons 

for lack of sanitization:

? Did not know of requirement ? Lack of personnel resources 

? Lack of sanitization instructions

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of media sanitized (Question 3) / Number of media submitted for reuse or 

discarding (Question 2)

Data Source NIST SP 800-26 assessments can provide some level of knowledge of the existence 

of a sanitization process. To gather the information for the formal metric, a survey 

would have to be conducted of those responsible for media sanitization. Records may 

be stored in a media control log or a parts log.

Indicators The goal is to have 100 percent of media sanitized before reuse or disposal. Without 

sanitization, elements can be retrieved from the media to allow unauthorized access 

to information. This risk is reduced through the sanitization process.

Comments: Question 1 is included to determine whether there is a policy concerning 

sanitization of media to provide direction to personnel. The answer to Question 4 determines 

why media may not be sanitized prior to being discarded.
A-29

A.9 Contingency Planning

Critical Element 9.1 Have the most critical and sensitive operations and their supporting computer 

resources been identified?

Subordinate 

Question

9.1.1 Are critical data files and operations identified and the frequency of file 

backups documented?

Metric Percentage of critical data files and operations with an established backup frequency

Purpose To gauge the risk exposure due to insufficient backups

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Are critical operations and data files identified? 

? Yes ? No ? Do not have critical data/operations 

2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, why not?

? Did not know of requirement ? Lack of resources ? Other (please explain)

3. Number of critical data files and operations identified as requiring backup ______

4. Number of critical data files and operations identified as requiring backup for 

which backup frequency is established and documented ______

5. Are backups documented?

? Yes ? No 

6. Are files backed up regularly (according to requirements)?

? Yes ? No

7. Are backup files tested each time for successful full transfer/copy of data?

? Yes ? No

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of critical files with an established backup frequency (Question 4) / Number 

of critical files requiring backup (Question 3)

Data Source Answers to NIST SP 800-26 questions and a survey

Indicators The results of this metric should reach 100 percent indicating that all files requiring 

backup are being backed up in compliance with an established backup process. 

Regular backups are the key to information recovery. To achieve a reliable result for 

this metric, it is first necessary to identify critical files that require backup (Question 

1). Then a tracking system must record backups (Question 5).
A-30

Comments: Question 6 determines whether backups occur with the required frequency. Lapses 

in backup time can cause degeneration of original data. Question 7 is asked to determine the 

quality of the backups. If the integrity of the data is not preserved during backup, there will not 

be a full recovery when it is necessary to retrieve information from backup sources, rendering the 

backups ineffective.
A-31

Critical Element 9.2 Has a comprehensive contingency plan been developed and documented?

Subordinate 

Question

9.2.10 Has the contingency plan been distributed to all appropriate personnel?

Metric Percentage of systems that have a contingency plan

Purpose To determine the percentage of systems in compliance with the requirement to have a 

contingency plan. Existence of such a plan indicates a certain level of preparedness 

if the plan were to be activated.

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? ____________ 

3. How many systems have a documented contingency plan? _____

4. How many contingency plans assign responsibilities for recovery? _____

5. How many contingency plans identify the location of backups? _____

6. How many contingency plans provide detailed instructions for restoring operations 

included in the plan? _____

7. How many contingency plans have been distributed to all appropriate personnel 

involved with recovery? _____

8. How many contingency plans have been reviewed and approved by management 

and key affected parties? _____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems with plan (Question 3) / Total number of systems (Question 2)

Data Source System documentation tracking; NIST self-assessments

Indicators The desired state for this metric is for 100 percent of systems to have a contingency 

plan. An upward trend is positive. A low percentage of systems with contingency 

plans may indicate a lack of an agency policy requiring contingency plans or failure 

to enforce such a policy. 

Comments: Questions 4 through 8 validate that the required major components of a 

contingency plan are included and that personnel have a copy accessible for use when needed. 

Question 8 verifies that management has reviewed and approved the contingency plan.
A-32

Critical Element 9.3 Are tested contingency/disaster recovery plans in place?

Subordinate 

Question

9.3.3 Is the plan periodically tested and readjusted as appropriate?

Metric Percentage of systems for which contingency plans have been tested in the past year

Purpose To determine the number and percentage of contingency plans tested in the past year 

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? ____________ 

3. How many of the contingency plans have been tested within the last year? _____

4. Are results of testing recorded?

? Yes ? No

5. How many alterations to the plans were necessary after testing? ____

6. How many alterations were completed? ______

7. How many plans were retested after alterations were made? _____

8. How many plans were finalized and approved by management and affected 

parties after alterations were made? ______

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of contingency plans tested (Question 3) / Number of systems total 

(Question 2)

Data Source Contingency plan repository.

Indicators If this metric yields a low percentage, it identifies specific systems for follow-up and 

retesting, development of a contingency plan, or analysis of areas in which the 

contingency plan is not being updated as necessary.

Comments: Questions 4 through 8 validate that results of contingency plan tests are tracked and 

adjustments made as required. Final approval of contingency plans with changes should require 

review by management and affected parties to ensure that new procedures and roles are reviewed 

and understood. This process helps ensure future success in implementing the plan.

The metric’s data source portion assumes that there is a contingency plan repository within the 

agency. If there is a repository, it may be possible to avoid asking implementation evidence 
A-33

survey questions of specific individuals. If there is no repository, the survey questions will need 

to be asked of all system owners.
A-34

A.10 Hardware and Systems Software Maintenance

Critical Element 10.1 Is access limited to system software and hardware?

Subordinate 

Question

10.1.1 Are restrictions in place on who performs maintenance and repair activities?

Metric Percentage of systems that impose restrictions on system maintenance personnel

Purpose To determine the percentage of systems that have controls on system maintenance 

activities to limit the risk exposure of data and the possibility of unauthorized 

installation of components on the system 

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? __________

2. How many systems have restrictions on who performs maintenance and repair 

activities on system software and hardware? ________

3. How many systems log maintenance activities? _________

4. What documentation outlines maintenance restrictions (check all that apply)?

? System security plan

? IT security policy

? System configuration and operating procedures

? Other (specify) ______________________________________

5. Who is allowed to perform system maintenance and repair (check all that apply)?

? Internal systems engineers

? On site external vendor software or hardware representatives

? Remote external vendor software or hardware representatives

? Other (specify) ________________________________

6. Are procedures in use to control remote maintenance services when diagnostic 

procedures or maintenance is performed through telecommunications arrangements?

? Yes ? No

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems with restrictions on maintenance personnel (Question 2) / Total 

number of systems (Question 1)
A-35

Data Source Maintenance records; system security and operations documentation

Indicators This metric seeks to ensure that all systems limit maintenance personnel access to the 

system. The result should approach 100 percent for full compliance. Maintenance 

personnel are allowed special access and rights to the system. Without controls on 

the number of personnel and the type of personnel with maintenance access, the 

system is more open to unauthorized access to processed and stored data and to the 

installation of unauthorized components. All systems must have restrictions on 

maintenance access to reduce exposure to these risks.

Comments: Question 3 is included to determine whether the restrictions that are stated can be 

verified through stored records regarding access given to system maintenance personnel. Logs 

can also reveal the number of persons who have maintenance access to the machine, which 

should be kept to a minimum. Question 4 validates that restrictions are documented. If no 

documentation exists, each system administrator is less likely to have influence on the control, 

and there is no continuity as personnel change in the agency, limiting the value of this control 

significantly. Question 5 seeks to describe the type of personnel who can access the system for 

maintenance duties. This allows analysis of risk from exposure to external and internal sources. 

This data also can be used to ensure that compliance measures are in place along with the 

documented requirements. Question 6 expands on the breadth of the restriction, ensuring that 

remote access for maintenance activities is formally arranged.
A-36

Critical Element 10.2 Are all new and revised hardware and software authorized, tested, and approved 

before implementation?

Subordinate 

Question

10.2.3 Are software change request forms used to document requests and related 

approvals?

Metric Percentage of software changes documented and approved through change request 

forms

Purpose To determine the level of software configuration changes that are documented and 

approved

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Do you have a formal process for requesting and tracking software changes on 

systems and obtaining appropriate approvals for each change (e.g., change request 

forms)?

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how do you document changes and approvals?

? Automated system tracks change history and approval

? Change request forms

? Other (specify) ____________

3. Number of software changes or updates that occurred during reporting 

period_____

4. Number of changes that have a corresponding documented software change 

request form/record _____

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually

Formula Number of documented approved software changes with forms (Question 4) / Total 

number of software changes (Question 3)

Data Source Configuration management database or software change request form documentation

Indicators The target for the metric is 100 percent. Software changes should be documented 

and approved as part of a controlled configuration management process. Lack of 

formal approval requirements for software changes increases the complexity of the 

version control and security updates that must be applied to a system. 

Comments: Questions 1 and 2 are asked to validate that there is a process requiring systematic 

documentation of requests for software changes and of management approval of these requests.
A-37

Critical Element 10.3 Are systems managed to reduce vulnerabilities?

Subordinate 

Question

10.3.2 Are systems periodically reviewed for known vulnerabilities and software 

patches promptly installed?

Metric Percentage of systems with the latest approved patches installed

Purpose To quantify the level of risk exposure caused by the lack of current security patch 

implementation

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Is regular vulnerability scanning conducted?

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are scanned every time? ________

3. How many of the scanned systems had approved patches? ________

4. If the answer to Question 1 was no, why not?

? Insufficient funding

? Insufficient staff

? Other (specify) activities had higher priorities

? Other (specify) _________________

Frequency Monthly

Formula Number of systems with approved patches (Question 3)/ Total number of scanned 

systems (Question 2)

Data Source Regular vulnerability scanning results

Indicators This metric monitors installation of applicable patches and provides useful 

information about the level of risk exposure at a system level. The goal in this case is 

100 percent. The desired trend for this metric is upward. 

Comments: This metric counts only those systems where the latest patches were evaluated for 

impact to system functionality and approved for installation. Without a patch approval process, 

the impact of patches to systems is unknown and patch application may negatively affect system 

performance and functionality. Question 4 identifies why a patch compliance validation process 

may be lacking and points to specific corrective actions that would facilitate establishment of 

such a process.
A-38

A.11 Data Integrity

Critical Element 11.1 Is virus detection and elimination software installed and activated?

Subordinate 

Question

11.1.1 Are virus scans automatic?

Metric Percentage of systems with automatic virus definition updates and automatic virus 

scanning

Purpose To gauge the degree of protection from known computer viruses

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. If yes, how many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as 

applicable)? _____

3. How many systems use automatic virus definition updates and automatic virus 

scanning? _____

4. If automatic scanning is performed, in what instances does scanning occur?

? Automatic scan at network login

? Automatic scan at client/server power on

? Automatic scan on diskette insertion

? Automatic scan on download from an unprotected source, such as the Internet

? Automatic network scanning on timed intervals

? Unknown

? Other (specify) __________

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Number of systems with automatic virus definition updates and scanning (Question 

3) / Number of systems in inventory (Question 2)

Data Source Survey, network administration records

Indicators Automatic virus scanning ensures that virus checks are performed at regular 

intervals. Automatic virus definition updates ensure that the virus checks are 

performed using the latest virus definition files. The best security practice is to have 

a 100 percent result for this metric. If a low percentage of systems are using 

automatic scanning or if user action is required to obtain the latest virus definitions, 

the risk of systems being infected by computer viruses increases substantially.
A-39

Comments: Question 4 validates the use of automatic scanning by specifying when automation 

occurs. By identifying instances in which automatic scanning does not occur, this question 

indicates gaps for management to close. If the share of systems using automated virus updates is 

unknown, the metric result cannot be considered reliable.
A-40

Critical Element 11.2 Are data integrity and validation controls used to provide assurance that the 

information has not been altered and the system functions as intended?

Subordinate 

Question

11.2.3 Are procedures in place to determine compliance with password policies?

Metric Percentage of systems that perform password policy verification

Purpose To determine whether procedures are performed to ensure that passwords are in 

compliance with established policies

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems are there in your agency (or agency component, as applicable) 

that use passwords? ______

2. Is a password policy documented?

? Yes ? No

3. If yes, how many systems test passwords for policy compliance? ______

4. Which of the following methods are used to test passwords for compliance with 

policy?

? Automatic flagging through policy control software

? Configuration control through software password administration settings 

? Password cracking tools

? Manual review of passwords

? Other (specify) _______________

5. If passwords are checked, how often are they assessed (check all that apply)?

? Upon creation

? Weekly

? Monthly

? Quarterly

? Other (specify) ______________

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Number of systems with password compliance checking (Question 3) / Total number 

of systems with passwords (Question 1)
A-41

Data Source Survey; risk assessments; query against user password directory or password 

cracking tool records

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. First, robust password policies must be in 

place. Once policies have been established, passwords must be in compliance with 

these policies to reduce incidents caused by password guessing. Policies should be 

enforced by an automated or manual methodology.

Comments: Questions 4 and 5 are included to validate that a process is in place for checking 

password compliance. The type of methodology and its frequency of use indicate the degree of 

assurance of the consistency and reliability of the process. Manual reviews involve a greater risk 

of user error; automated methods have greater reliability. In addition, shorter intervals between 

checks ensure that noncompliant passwords are remedied early, lessening exposure to a security 

breach through use of a password.
A-42

A.12 Documentation

Critical Element 12.1 Is there sufficient documentation explaining how software/hardware is to be 

used?

Subordinate 

Question

12.1.3 Is there application documentation for in-house applications?

Metric Percentage of in-house applications with documentation on file

Purpose To measure the level of compliance with the requirement for system documentation

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many applications are in the inventory? ____

2. How many applications in the inventory have supporting system documentation on 

file? _____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of applications with documentation on file (Question2) / Number of 

applications in inventory (Question 1)

Data Source Documentation repository/database 

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A tremendous risk exists when in-house 

applications are developed, and no system documentation or incomplete 

documentation exists. Updates and patches have a high probability of being 

neglected on a system when there is no documentation.

Comments: This metric can be expanded with agency-specific validation questions that address 

what specific documentation should exist for in-house applications. Depending on the questions, 

the metric could provide insight into why documentation is not kept (e.g., lack of awareness of 

location of documentation and lack of an update process). The potential exposure to risk related 

to the lack of system documentation, such as application manuals, system architecture, and 

documentation of interconnections with other systems, can also be obtained through specific 

tailored questions.
A-43

Critical Element 12.2 Are there formal security and operational procedures documented?

Subordinate 

Question

12.2.4 Are there risk assessment reports?

Metric Percentage of systems with documented risk assessment reports

Purpose To determine the appropriate documentation of risk assessments for systems

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency maintain a current inventory of IT systems? 

? Yes ? No

2. How many general support systems and major applications are in place as 

described by NIST SP 800-18? ______________

3. How many of these systems have documented risk assessments? ___

4. How many risk assessments contain the following information?

System characterization (including connections and boundaries)___

Threats identified____

Vulnerabilities identified____

Risk level determined____

Corrective measures outlined____

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems with documented risk assessments (Question 3) / Total number 

of systems (Question 2)

Data Source Risk assessment repository

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. All required systems must have a 

documented risk assessment performed at least every three years. 

Comments: Question 4 is included for validation of a fully completed risk assessment. All five 

elements must be present for risk assessment documentation to be in compliance with NIST SP 

800-30 guidance. If an element is not accounted for, a risk assessment may be inadequate. This 

metric can be used to gain further insight into the information provided by Metrics 1.1 and 1.2.
A-44

A.13 Security Awareness, Training, and Education

Critical Element 13.1 Have employees received adequate training to fulfill their security 

responsibilities?

Subordinate 

Question

13.1.2 Are employee training and professional development documented and 

monitored?

Metric Percentage of employees with significant security responsibilities who have received 

specialized training

Purpose To gauge the level of expertise among designated security roles and security 

responsibilities for specific systems within the agency

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Are significant security responsibilities defined, with qualifications criteria, and 

documented?

? Yes ? No

2. Are records kept of which employees have specialized security responsibilities? 

? Yes ? No

3. How many employees in your agency (or agency component, as applicable) have 

significant security responsibilities? _____

4. Are training records maintained? (Training records indicate the training that 

specific employees have received.)

? Yes ? No

5. Do training plans state that specialized training is necessary? 

? Yes ? No

6. How many of those with significant security responsibilities have received the 

required training stated in their training plan? _____

7. If all personnel have not received training, state all reasons that apply:

? Insufficient funding

? Insufficient time

? Courses unavailable

? Employee has not registered

? Other (specify) ______________

Frequency Annually, at a minimum
A-45

Formula Number of employees with significant security responsibilities who have received 

required training (Question 6) / Number of employees with significant security 

responsibilities (Question 3)

Data Source Employee training records or database; course completion certificates
A-46

Indicators The target for this measure is 100 percent. If security personnel are not given 

appropriate training, an organization may not be equipped to combat the latest threats 

and vulnerabilities. Specific security control options and tools are rapidly changing 

and evolving. Continued training enforces the availability of necessary security 

information. 

This metric can be correlated with the number of security incidents and the number 

of patched vulnerabilities to determine whether an increase in the number of trained 

security staff is related to, and facilitates, a reduction in certain types of incidents and 

open vulnerabilities.

Comments: Questions 1 and 2 are used to gauge the reliability of the information for this 

metric. Roles and responsibilities must be defined in policy and procedures, and personnel 

identified to carry out the roles. Questions 4 and 5 provide information to help identify any 

specialized training that personnel need to complete.

If sufficient training of personnel is not provided, Question 7 helps identify the reason(s). If the 

cause of insufficient training is known, management can institute corrective actions to remedy 

this deficiency. 
A-47

A.14 Incident Response Capability

Critical Element 14.1 Is there a capability to provide help to users when a security incident occurs in 

the system?

Subordinate 

Question

14.1.1 Is a formal incident response capability available ?

Metric Percentage of agency components with incident handling and response capability

Purpose To ensure that there is an agency wide incident response capability

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does your agency component maintain an incident response capability? 

? Yes ? No

2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, why not?

? Did not know of requirement ? Lack of resources 

? Competing priorities

3. Is there a formal process and/or documented incident handling guide that defines 

“incidents” and describes how to report an incident internally?

? Yes ? No

4. Are incidents monitored and tracked until resolved?

? Yes ? No

5. Are personnel trained to recognize and handle incidents?

? Yes ? No

6. Are alerts and advisories received and responded to?

? Yes ? No

7. Number of incidents reported from your agency component during reporting 

period________

Frequency Semiannually

Formula Number of agency components that have incident response capability (tally answers 

to Question 1 from all components) / Total number of components

Data Source ISSO; NIST SP 800-26 (particularly Items 14.1 and 14.1.1)
A-48

Indicators The goal for this metric is 100 percent; an upward trend is necessary to show 

progress and the continued strength of the IT security program. The ability to report 

and handle incidents is critical to maintaining an adequate security posture. 

Comments: Question 2 is a causation question that indicates why an agency component’s 

incident response capability may be inadequate. If the answer to Question 2 is “Did not know of 

requirement,” it may be necessary to investigate whether a policy is in place requiring an 

incident response capability, or if guidance is necessary. Other corrective actions will be 

required if the answer to Question 2 was “Lack of resources” or “Competing priorities.” 

Questions 3 through 6 validate that the essential components of an incident response capability 

are in place and to what degree. For example, if a guide exists but no training is provided to 

enable personnel to recognize and report incidents, the capability would not be considered 

robust. The lack of an element in Questions 3 through 6 indicates weakness in the incident 

response capability that must be addressed to increase functionality and effectiveness. 

Question 7 is another validation question. It is unlikely that there will be no incidents reported 

from an agency component. This number can be compared with agency wide incident reports 

and correlated with items that would have affected the agency component, to determine whether 

reporting is occurring as necessary.
A-49

Critical Element 14.2 Is incident-related information shared with appropriate organizations?

Subordinate 

Question

14.2.3 Is incident information reported to Federal Computer Incident Response 

Center (FedCIRC), National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), and local law 

enforcement when necessary?

Metric Number of incidents reported to FedCIRC, NIPC, and local law enforcement

Purpose To determine the level of appropriate, timely reporting to FedCIRC, NIPC, and local 

law enforcement

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Does the agency use a tracking mechanism or database to capture incidents that are 

required to be reported to FedCIRC, NIPC, and local law enforcement? 

? Yes ? No

2. If not, does agency policy state the maximum acceptable time frame for sharing 

incident information within the agency and with FedCIRC, NIPC, and local law 

enforcement?

? Yes ? No

3. If the answer to Question 2 is yes, what is the maximum acceptable time listed in 

agency policy for reporting_____?

Within the agency _____ To FedCIRC ______

To NIPC_____ To local law enforcement_____

4. How many incidents were reported to the following in the current reporting 

period?

Agency____ FedCIRC ____

NIPC____ Local law enforcement____

5. How many incidents met the required time frame for reporting to the following?

Agency____ FedCIRC ____

NIPC____ Local law enforcement____

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually

Formula Sum of answers to Question 4

Data Source Incident reporting database; incident response/reporting policy
A-50

Indicators The ability to complete this metric indicates that the agency’s reporting policy is 

detailed enough to specify an upper limit on the time frame within which incidents 

are to be reported internally to agency personnel and externally to FedCIRC, NIPC, 

and local law enforcement. FedCIRC and OMB guidance can be referenced to 

determine what constitutes a “timely manner,” so that the first part of this metric can 

be answered. Once you have the answer to Question 3, you can compare the average 

times listed in agency policy with those required in OMB guidance. If the reporting 

time your agency stipulates is not consistent with OMB guidance, the policy should 

be modified to comply with the OMB guidance. If there is no agency policy in place, 

this weakness in the agency IT security program should be corrected. 

Comments: Question 1 indicates the level of reliability with which information can be obtained 

for this metric. If no formal tracking system is used, the validity of the computed number will be 

suspect. Tracking the timeliness of internal incident reporting within the agency in Questions 4 

and 5 can help identify potential causes of delays in external reporting. If internal reporting is 

slow, external reporting will be affected.

Questions 2 and 3 explore the level of knowledge of what constitutes an appropriate time frame 

for reporting. These questions aid in determining the reliability of the information collected in 

Question 5. Compliance cannot be measured unless there is a standard to meet.
A-51

A.15 Identification and Authentication

Critical Element 15.1 Are users individually authenticated via passwords, tokens, or other devices?

Subordinate 

Question

15.1.3 Are vendor-supplied passwords replaced immediately?

Metric Percentage of systems without active vendor-supplied passwords

Purpose To determine the percentage of systems that have deleted or replaced vendorsupplied passwords and to gauge level of risk exposure from existing vendorsupplied passwords

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems do you have within your agency (or agency component)? 

________

2. Is there a documented policy for removing vendor-supplied passwords before 

software is released into a production environment?

? Yes ? No

3. Are there documented procedures for installing new software that requires 

vendor-supplied passwords to be changed?

? Yes ? No

4. Are test procedures in place to determine whether vendor-supplied passwords 

have been replaced before full implementation of software is allowed?

? Yes ? No

5. How many systems actually replace vendor-supplied passwords? _____

6. Have any system weaknesses been recorded previously related to active vendorsupplied passwords?

? Yes ? No

7. If yes, have these weaknesses been closed and verified?

? Yes ? No

Frequency Semiannually, annually

Formula Number of systems with vendor-supplied passwords changed 

(Question 5) / Total number of systems (Question 1)

Data Source Risk assessments; ST&E; system audits; baseline security requirements

Indicators The metric target is 100 percent. All vendor-supplied passwords must be removed to 

protect systems and applications from unauthorized use. 
A-52

Comments: Questions 2, 3, and 4 check the reliability of provided information regarding the 

removal of vendor-supplied passwords. Without a formal policy, it is up to each system 

administrator to decide about vendor-supplied password removal. These questions also can be 

used to determine the causes of failure to remove vendor-supplied passwords. Management may 

need to consider enhancing policies, procedures, and testing processes to promote compliance.

Questions 6 and 7 validate that processes are in place and are effective. System audits and risk 

assessments will reveal whether there are issues with vendor-supplied passwords. The tracking 

system for closing such previously identified weaknesses ensures that these issues no longer 

exist.
A-53

Critical Element 15.2 Are access controls enforcing segregation of duties?

Subordinate 

Question

15.2.1 Does the system correlate actions to users?

Metric Percentage of unique user IDs

Purpose To quantify the amount of unique user IDs that trace system events to specific 

individuals

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Is each user ID associated with only one unique user?

? Yes ? No

2. Are guest accounts allowed on the system?

? Yes ? No

3. Are access control lists maintained?

? Yes ? No

4. How are user IDs created?

? Randomly by system

? User name variant

? Numerical employee identifier

? Other (specify) ____________________

5. How are user IDs checked for uniqueness?

? Automated access control list with duplicate checking

? ID preset as unique

? Manual access control list review

? Other (specify) ____________________

6. Are all vendor-supplied user IDs changed?

? Yes ? No

7. How many user IDs are active? ______

8. How many active user IDs are unique? ______

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, annually
A-54

Formula Number of unique IDs (Question 8) / Total number of user IDs (Question 7)

Data Source Access control list (can sort list if manageable or query for duplicate checking); 

password files

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. It is imperative that actions be traced to 

individuals to maintain control and traceability. Per OMB guidance, “Individual 

accountability consists of holding someone responsible for his or her actions. In a 

general support system, accountability is normally accomplished by identifying and 

authenticating users of the system and subsequently tracing actions on the system to 

the user who initiated them.” 

Comments: Questions 1 through 6 are validation questions. The existence of an access control 

list substantiates that data (in addition to the password files) is available to check for unique user 

IDs. Allowing guest accounts automatically implies that user actions may not be traceable 

individually to members of the guest group. The methodology for creating user IDs can ensure 

the uniqueness of these IDs. Vendor-supplied user IDs should be removed to ensure that 

unauthorized access does not occur through a vendor-supplied user account that cannot be traced 

to an individual user.
A-55

A.16 Logical Access Controls

Critical Element 16.1 Do the logical access controls restrict users to authorized transactions and 

functions?

Subordinate 

Question

16.1.3 Is access to security software restricted to security administrators?

Metric Percentage of users with access to security software that are not security 

administrators

Purpose To determine compliance with policy and the level of risk associated with allowing 

unauthorized personnel access to security software

Implementation 

Evidence

1. Is there a policy restricting access to security software to security administrators? 

? Yes ? No

2. Do you maintain an access control list? 

? Yes ? No 

3. Are users designated in the role of security administrator and assigned rights 

according to data sensitivity?

? Yes ? No

4. Number of users with access to security software________

5. Number of security administrators_______

6. Number of personnel with access to security software who are not identified as 

security administrators_____

Frequency Quarterly (if personnel changes are frequent), semiannually, annually

Formula Number of personnel with access to software who are not identified as security 

administrators (Question 6) / Number of users with access to security software 

(Question 4)

Data Source Access control lists

Indicators The target for this metric is 0 percent. To ensure that personnel with access to

security software have the appropriate skill sets and have undergone appropriate 

screening, no person should be allowed such access unless they are is designated as 

a security administrator. The more people have access to security software, the 

more likely it is that security software misconfigurations or internal security 

incidents will occur.

Comments: Question 1 is included to determine whether the agency has a policy that provides 

guidance on specific access restrictions. Once this has been determined, compliance with the 

policy can be assessed or policies updated. Question 2 determines whether there is a reliable 
A-56

source of data for the metric. Questions 3 and 5 validate that the agency designates system 

administrators.
A-57

Critical Element 16.2 Are there logical controls over network access?

Subordinate 

Question

16.2.2 Are insecure protocols disabled?

Metric Percentage of systems running restricted protocols

Purpose To determine the security of the system through protocol protection and to gauge the 

level of risk exposure from allowing prohibited protocols to run on the system

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many systems do you have within your agency (or agency component)? 

________

2. Is there a policy regarding individual protocols allowed and disallowed in the 

environment?

? Yes ? No

3. How many systems are running prohibited protocols? _______

4. If prohibited protocols are active, why are they enabled? (check all that apply)

? User request

? Functionality requirement

? Legacy system would require massive resources to change

? Waiver received 

? Lack of resources

? Lack of system administrator training

? Lack of system administrator time

Other (specify) ______________

Frequency Semiannually, annually (also more frequently if automated configuration 

management/policy enforcement software is in place)

Formula Number of systems running restricted protocols (Question 3) / Total number of 

systems (Question 1)

Data Source Configuration management/enterprise policy software; risk assessments

Indicators The target is to have 0 percent of systems running restricted protocols. Protocols 

allow access and transmission of information to occur across systems. Certain 

protocols contain inherently insecure features and should therefore be largely 

prohibited. However, port and protocol policies must be set for each agency. Some 

protocols can be made more secure through enhancements, such as encryption, and 
A-58

may not require complete disablement. 

Comments: Some insecure protocols may be allowed under certain security enhancement 

conditions (e.g., adding encryption). A complementary metric may be created to discover 

whether some protocols are allowed under restricted conditions in the IT security policy. Then, 

it would be necessary to determine the number of systems employing security enhancements for 

those protocols. If there are no automated or manual configuration management controls for 

protocols, assessments can be used to validate that baseline security controls include the 

restriction of specific protocols. 

Question 4 addresses various reasons for allowing prohibited protocols, some of which are 

totally legitimate. If protocols are allowed for functionality reasons, per user request, or to allow 

legacy systems to function, they may need to stay open until these reasons are no longer 

legitimate. If a waiver was obtained, the system must have undergone a formal process by which 

management accepted responsibility for residual risk caused by keeping the protocols running. 

The responses, “Lack of resources,” “Lack of system administrator training,” and “Lack of 

system administrator time” point to causes that can be alleviated through increased management 

attention.
A-59

Critical Element 16.3 If the public accesses the system, are there controls implemented to protect the 

integrity of the application and the confidence of the public?

Subordinate 

Question

16.3.1 Is a privacy policy posted on the website?

Metric Percentage of websites with a posted privacy policy

Purpose To determine the number of agency websites that notify public users of the existence 

and substance of the agency’s privacy policy

Implementation 

Evidence

1. How many websites are hosted by your agency (or agency component)? _____

2. What details are contained in the privacy policy about information collected?

 Use restrictions 

 Access restrictions 

 Retention length

? Disposal practice

3. How many of the websites have a privacy policy publicly posted at the initial 

access point? ____________

Frequency Quarterly, semiannually, or annually, as needed.

Formula Websites within the organization with privacy policies posted (Question 4) / Total 

number of websites hosted by the organization (Question 1)

Data Source ISSO, webmaster, website review

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. A lower percentage represents greater 

potential risk of privacy loss caused by failure to appropriately notify users. 

Comments: Question 2 is included to determine the breadth of information contained in the 

privacy policy. Question 3 assesses the privacy policy’s location on websites.
A-60

A.17 Audit Trails

Critical Element 17.1 Is activity involving access to and modification of sensitive or critical files 

logged, monitored, and possible security violations investigated?

Subordinate 

Question

17.1.1 Does the audit trail provide a trace of user actions?

Metric Percentage of systems on which audit trails provide a trace of user actions

Purpose To determine compliance with the requirement to correlate user actions on the 

system in order to maintain traceability

Implementation 

Evidence

For each system:

1. Is logging activated on the system?

? Yes ? No

2. Do logs capture the user ID for each event?

? Yes ? No

3. Which events do logs record?

Successful login ? Yes ? No

Failed logins ? Yes ? No

Change password ? Yes ? No

Unauthorized attempt to access files/directory ? Yes ? No

Change access privileges ? Yes ? No

Other (specify) ________

4. Do logs record the following for each event?

Date/Time stamp ? Yes ? No

User ID ? Yes ? No 

Type of event ? Yes ? No

Command used for event ? Yes ? No

Frequency Annually

Formula Number of systems on which logging of user actions is performed (Sum of “Yes” 

responses to Question 2) / Total number of systems

Data Source Risk assessment findings; system audits; ST&E; POA&M
A-61

Indicators The target for this metric is 100 percent. It is imperative to trace actions to 

individuals to maintain control and traceability. According to OMB guidance, 

“Individual accountability consists of holding someone responsible for his or her 

actions. In a general support system, accountability is normally accomplished by 

identifying and authenticating users of the system and subsequently tracing actions 

on the system to the user who initiated them. This may be done, for example, by 

looking for patterns of behavior by users.”

Comments: Questions 1, 3, and 4 seek to validate that logs do capture user IDs for each event. 

The first step is to ensure that logging is activated. Often, the configuration for logging is not 

changed from the default setting of “Off.” To enable user ID correlation with events, the event 

types to be captured should be configured. This will allow analysis of user actions as they relate 

to specific audited events. Logging should include more depth to capture all relevant user 

activity that could lead to an incident or attempted security breach. Question 4 validates that 

there is a trace of user action by ID, time of action, and type of action.
B-1

APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS

C&A Certification and Accreditation

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection

DAA Designated Approval Authority

FedCIRC Federal Computer Incident Response Center

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FISCAM Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual

FY Fiscal Year

GAO General Accounting Office

GISRA Government Information Security Reform Act

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GSS General Support System

IA Information Assurance

IATO Interim Authority to Operate

ID Identification

IG Inspector General

ISSEA International System Security Engineering Association

ISSO Information System Security Officer

IT Information Technology

ITL Information Technology Laboratory

MA Major Application

NIPC National Infrastructure Protection Center

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

POA&M Plan of Actions and Milestones

SDLC System Development Life Cycle

SP Special Publication

ST&E Security Test and Evaluation
C-1

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES

Bartol N., Givans N., Measuring the “Goodness” of Security, 2nd International System Security 

Engineering Association (ISSEA) Conference Proceedings, February 2001.

Bartol N., IT Security Performance Measurement: Live, 3rd ISSEA Conference Proceedings, 

March 2002

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (formerly known as the Information Technology Management 

Reform Act), February 10, 1996.

Computer Security Act of 1987, 40 U.S. Code 759 (Public Law 100-235), January 8, 1988.

E-Government Act of 2002, Title III—Information Security, November 14, 2002.

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398).

General Accounting Office, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM), 

GAO/AIMD-12.19.6, January 1996.

Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-12, An Introduction to 

Computer Security: The NIST Handbook, October 1995. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-14, Generally Accepted 

Principles and Practices for Securing Information Technology Systems, September 1996.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-18, Guide for 

Developing Security Plans and Information Technology Systems, December 1998.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-26, Security SelfAssessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, August 2001.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management 

Guide for Information Technology Systems, June 2001.

Office of Management and Budget, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” 

Appendix III to OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, February 

8, 1996.