Source: http://docplayer.net/8579930-152-ferc-61-054-united-states-of-america-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-18-cfr-part-40-docket-no-rm15-14-000.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-14 03:38:17
Document Index: 507988354

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

152 FERC 61,054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. 18 CFR Part 40. [Docket No. RM ] - PDF
152 FERC 61,054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. 18 CFR Part 40. [Docket No. RM ]
Download "152 FERC 61,054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. 18 CFR Part 40. [Docket No. RM15-14-000]"
1 152 FERC 61,054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM ] Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards (July 16, 2015) AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve seven critical infrastructure protection (CIP) Reliability Standards: CIP (Security Management Controls), CIP (Personnel and Training), CIP (Physical Security of BES Cyber Systems), CIP (Systems Security Management), CIP (Recovery Plans for BES Cyber Systems), CIP (Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability Assessments), and CIP (Information Protection). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted the proposed Reliability Standards in response to the Commission s Order No The proposed Reliability Standards address the cyber security of the bulk electric system and improve upon the current Commission-approved CIP Reliability Standards. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop certain modifications to Reliability Standard CIP and to develop requirements addressing supply chain management. DATES: Comments are due [INSERT DATE 60 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
2 Docket No. RM ii ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways: Electronic Filing through Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to- PDF format and not in a scanned format. Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Phillips (Technical Information) Office of Electric Reliability Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC (202) Kevin Ryan (Legal Information) Office of the General Counsel Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC (202) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
3 152 FERC 61,054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards Docket No. RM NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (July 16, 2015) 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 the Commission proposes to approve seven critical infrastructure protection (CIP) Reliability Standards: CIP (Security Management Controls), CIP (Personnel and Training), CIP (Physical Security of BES Cyber Systems), CIP (Systems Security Management), CIP (Recovery Plans for BES Cyber Systems), CIP (Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability Assessments), and CIP (Information Protection). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted the proposed Reliability Standards in response to Order No The Commission also proposes to approve NERC s proposed implementation plan and violation risk factor and violation severity level assignments. In addition, we propose to approve NERC s proposed new or revised definitions for inclusion in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability 1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 2 Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 791, 78 Fed. Reg. 72,755 (Dec. 3, 2013), 145 FERC 61,160 (2013), order on clarification and reh g, Order No. 791-A, 146 FERC 61,188 (2014).
4 Docket No. RM Standards (NERC Glossary). Further, the Commission proposes to approve the retirement of Reliability Standards CIP-003-5, CIP , CIP-006-5, CIP-007-5, CIP , CIP-010-1, and CIP The proposed Reliability Standards are designed to mitigate the cybersecurity risks to bulk electric system facilities, systems, and equipment, which, if destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered unavailable as a result of a cybersecurity incident, would affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. 3 As discussed below, we believe that the proposed CIP Reliability Standards are just and reasonable and address the directives in Order No. 791 by: (1) eliminating the identify, assess, and correct language in 17 of the CIP version 5 Standard requirements; (2) providing enhanced security controls for Low Impact assets; (3) providing controls to address the risks posed by transient electronic devices (e.g., thumb drives and laptop computers); and (4) addressing in an equally effective and efficient manner the need for a NERC Glossary definition for the term communication networks. Accordingly, we propose to approve the proposed CIP Reliability Standards because they improve the base-line cybersecurity posture of applicable entities compared to the current Commission-approved CIP Reliability Standards. 3. In addition, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop certain modifications to Reliability Standard CIP Specifically, 3 See NERC Petition at 3.
5 Docket No. RM while proposed CIP would require protections for communication networks among a limited group of bulk electric system Control Centers, we propose to direct that NERC modify Reliability Standard CIP to require protections for communication network components and data communicated between all bulk electric system Control Centers. In addition, we seek comment on the sufficiency of the security controls incorporated in the current CIP Reliability Standards regarding remote access used in relation to bulk electric system communications. Finally, as discussed in more detail below, we propose to direct NERC to develop requirements relating to supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services. I. Background A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards 4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. 4 Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the 4 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
6 Docket No. RM Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO, 5 and subsequently certified NERC. 6 B. Order No On November 22, 2013, in Order No. 791, the Commission approved the CIP version 5 Standards (Reliability Standards CIP through CIP-009-5, and CIP and CIP-011-1). 7 The Commission determined that the CIP version 5 Standards represented an improvement over prior iterations of the CIP Reliability Standards because, inter alia, they included a revised BES Cyber Asset categorization methodology that incorporated mandatory protections for all High, Medium, and Low Impact BES Cyber Assets, and because several new security controls improved the security posture of responsible entities. 8 In addition, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to: (1) remove the identify, assess, and correct language in 17 of the CIP Standard requirements; (2) develop enhanced security controls for Low Impact assets; (3) develop controls to protect transient electronic devices (e.g., thumb drives and laptop computers); (4) create a NERC Glossary definition for the term 5 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,204, order on reh g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,212 (2006). 6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC 61,062, order on reh g and compliance, 117 FERC 61,126 (2006), aff d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 7 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Id.
7 Docket No. RM communication networks, and develop new or modified Reliability Standards to protect the nonprogrammable components of communications networks. 6. In addition, the Commission directed NERC to conduct a survey of Cyber Assets that are included or excluded under the new BES Cyber Asset definition and submit an informational filing within one year. 9 Finally, the NOPR directed Commission staff to convene a technical conference to examine the technical issues concerning communication security, remote access, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework. 10 C. Informational Filing 7. On February 3, 2015, NERC submitted an informational filing assessing the results of a survey conducted to identify the scope of assets subject to the definition of the term BES Cyber Asset as it is applied in the CIP version 5 Standards. NERC states that the results of the survey indicate that, in general, the application of the BES Cyber Asset definition, and the 15 minute parameter in particular, resulted in the identification of BES Cyber Assets consistent with the language and intent of the CIP version 5 Standards. 11 NERC maintained that the survey results demonstrate that the definition of BES Cyber 9 Id. PP 76, 108, 136, Id. P See NERC Informational Filing, Docket No. RM , at 3 (filed Feb. 3, 2015).
8 Docket No. RM Asset provides a sound basis for identifying the types of Cyber Assets that should be subject to the cyber security protections required by the CIP Reliability Standards. 12 D. April 29, 2014 Technical Conference 8. On April 29, 2014, a staff-led technical conference was held pursuant to a directive in Order No The topics discussed at the technical conference included: (1) the adequacy of the approved CIP version 5 Standards protections for Bulk-Power System data being transmitted over data networks; (2) whether additional security controls are needed to protect Bulk-Power System communications networks, including remote systems access; and (3) the functional differences between the respective methods utilized for the identification, categorization, and specification of appropriate levels of protection for cyber assets using the CIP version 5 Standards as compared with those employed within the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. 9. With respect to the current state of protection for communications networks under the CIP version 5 Standards, some panelists opined that the CIP version 5 Standards lack controls to: (1) protect communications outside of the Electronic Security Perimeter; (2) protect data in motion; (3) authenticate messages and commands to BES Cyber Assets; and (4) protect systems or communications using non routable protocols. On the subject of the adequacy of protections for Bulk-Power System data under the CIP version 5 Standards, several panelists stated that stronger measures, such as encryption, 12 Id. 13 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P 225.
9 Docket No. RM would enhance the overall protection for Bulk-Power System communications. However, other panelists also stated that encryption was not a universal solution because it could cause unacceptable latency (i.e., time delay in communications) in certain applications. 10. Regarding the need for additional security controls for Bulk-Power System communications, panelists identified a number of worthwhile steps that could be explored to enhance remote access. Suggestions included the adoption of additional physical security controls, integrity checks, encryption (in certain cases), out of bounds detection for communications links, and coordination with vendors to enhance risk management. In addition, certain panelists stated their position that the use of intermediate systems, alone, is not sufficient to address remote access concerns. 14 Several panelists identified suggestions that could be explored to enhance protections for remote access, including the addition of logical or physical controls to provide additional network segmentation behind the intermediate systems. 15 E. NERC Petition 11. On February 13, 2015, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standards CIP-003-6, CIP-004-6, CIP-006-6, CIP-007-6, CIP-009-6, CIP-010-2, and 14 An Intermediate System is defined as A Cyber Asset or collection of Cyber Assets performing access control to restrict Interactive Remote Access to only authorized users. The Intermediate System must not be located inside the Electronic Security Perimeter. NERC Glossary at 46 (April 29, 2015). 15 See Transcript at pp (Kevin Perry speaking), (Richard Kinas speaking), 178 (Dr. Andrew Wright speaking), 179 (Andrew Ginter speaking).
10 Docket No. RM CIP-011-2, as well as the proposed implementation plan, 16 associated violation risk factor and violation severity level assignments, proposed new or revised definitions, 17 and retirement of Reliability Standards CIP-003-5, CIP , CIP-006-5, CIP-007-5, CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1, and CIP NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest because they satisfy the factors set forth in Order No. 672 that the Commission applies when reviewing a proposed Reliability Standard. 19 NERC maintains that the proposed Reliability Standards improve the cybersecurity protections required by the CIP Reliability Standards[.] NERC avers that the proposed CIP Reliability Standards satisfy the Commission directives in Order No Specifically, NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards remove the identify, assess, and correct language, which represents the 16 The proposed implementation plan is designed to match the effective dates of the proposed Reliability Standards with the effective dates of the prior versions of those Reliability Standards under the implementation plan of the CIP version 5 Standards. 17 The six new or revised definitions proposed for inclusion in the NERC Glossary are: (1) BES Cyber Asset; (2) Protected Cyber Asset; (3) Low Impact Electronic Access Point; (4) Low Impact External Routable Connectivity; (5) Removable Media; and (6) Transient Cyber Asset. 18 The proposed Reliability Standards are available on the Commission s elibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM and on the NERC website, 19 See NERC Petition at 13 and Exhibit C (citing Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,204 at PP ). 20 NERC Petition at 4.
11 Docket No. RM Commission s preferred approach to addressing the underlying directive. 21 In addition, NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards address the Commission s directive regarding a lack of specific controls or objective criteria for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems by requiring responsible entities to implement cybersecurity plans for assets containing Low Impact BES Cyber Systems to meet specific security objectives relating to: (i) cybersecurity awareness; (ii) physical security controls; (iii) electronic access controls; and (iv) Cyber Security Incident response With regard to the Commission s directive that NERC develop specific controls to protect transient electronic devices (e.g., thumb drives and laptop computers), NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standards require responsible entities to implement controls to protect transient devices connected to their high impact and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and associated [Protected Cyber Assets]. 23 In addition, NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards address the protection of communication networks by requiring entities to implement security controls for nonprogrammable components of communication networks at Control Centers with high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems. 24 Finally, NERC explains that it has not proposed a definition of the term communication network because the term is not used 21 Id. at 4, Id. at Id. at Id. at 8.
12 Docket No. RM in the CIP Reliability Standards. Additionally, NERC states that any proposed definition would need to be sufficiently broad to encompass all components in a communication network as they exist now and in the future. 25 NERC concludes that the proposed Reliability Standards meet the ultimate security objective of protecting communication networks (both programmable and nonprogrammable communication network components) Accordingly, NERC requests that the Commission approve the proposed Reliability Standards, the proposed implementation plan, the associated violation risk factor and violation severity level assignments, and the proposed new and revised definitions. NERC requests an effective date for the Reliability Standards of the later of April 1, 2016 or the first day of the first calendar quarter that is three months after the effective date of the Commission s order approving the proposed Reliability Standard, although NERC proposes that responsible entities will not have to comply with the requirements applicable to Low Impact BES Cyber Systems (CIP-003-6, Requirement R1, Part 1.2 and Requirement R2) until April 1, II. Discussion 15. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we propose to approve Reliability Standards CIP-003-6, CIP-004-6, CIP-006-6, CIP-007-6, CIP-009-6, CIP and CIP as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public 25 Id. at Id. at 52.
13 Docket No. RM interest. In addition, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), we propose to direct NERC to develop certain modifications to Reliability Standard CIP and to develop requirements addressing supply chain management. 16. The proposed Reliability Standards address the Commission s directives from Order No. 791 and are an improvement over the current Commission-approved CIP Reliability Standards. Specifically, we propose to approve the removal of the identify, assess, and correct language in certain requirements of the CIP version 5 Standards. We also propose to approve NERC s submission regarding the protection of Low Impact BES Cyber Systems. With regard to the directive to create a NERC Glossary definition for the term communication networks, we propose to approve NERC s proposal as an equally effective and efficient method to achieve the reliability goal underlying that directive in Order No The technical controls in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-006-6, which addresses the protection of non-programmable components of communication networks (i.e., network cabling and switches), are generally consistent with the type of controls cited by the Commission in Order No We are concerned, however, that the limited applicability of the proposed standard, i.e., BES Cyber Assets within the same Electronic Security Perimeter but located outside of a Physical Security Perimeter, results in a reliability gap. For the reasons discussed below, we propose to direct that NERC 27 See Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P 149.
14 Docket No. RM modify Reliability Standard CIP to require physical or logical protections for communication network components between all bulk electric system Control Centers. 18. Separately, we are concerned that changes in the bulk electric system cyber threat landscape, identified through recent malware campaigns targeting supply chain vendors, have highlighted a gap in the protections under the CIP Reliability Standards. These malware campaigns represent a new type of threat to the reliability of the bulk electric system where malicious code can infect the software of industrial control systems used by responsible entities. Therefore, we propose to direct NERC to develop a new Reliability Standard or modified Reliability Standard to provide security controls for supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services associated with bulk electric system operations. 19. We also propose to approve the new or revised definitions for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, and seek comment on the proposed definition for Low Impact External Routable Connectivity. Depending on the comments received, we may direct NERC to develop modifications to this definition to eliminate possible ambiguities and ensure that BES Cyber Assets receive adequate protection. 20. In addition, we propose to accept 19 violation risk factor and violation severity level assignments associated with the proposed Reliability Standards. Finally, we propose to approve NERC s proposed implementation plan and effective date. Below, we discuss the following matters: (A) -identify, assess, and correct language; (B) enhanced security controls for Low Impact assets; (C) protection of Transient Devices; (D) protection of bulk electric system communication networks; (E) supply
15 Docket No. RM chain management; (F) proposed definitions; (G) NERC s proposed implementation plan; and (H) proposed violation severity level and violation risk factor assignments. A. Identify, Assess, and Correct Language Order No In the proposed CIP version 5 Standards, NERC included language in 17 CIP requirements that would have required responsible entities to implement requirements in a manner to identify, assess, and correct deficiencies. 28 In Order No. 791, the Commission concluded that the identify, assess, and correct language proposed by NERC was unclear with respect to the obligations it would impose on responsible entities, how it would be implemented by responsible entities, and how it would be enforced. 29 The Commission explained that proposed Reliability Standards should be clear and unambiguous regarding what is required for compliance and who is required to comply. 30 The Commission directed NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop modifications to the CIP version 5 Standards to address the Commission s concerns with the identify, assess, and correct language. The Commission stated its preference that NERC should remove the identify, assess, and correct language from 28 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Id. P Id. P 68 (citing Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,242, at P 274, order on reh g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC 61,053 (2007)).
16 Docket No. RM the 17 CIP version 5 requirements, while retaining the substantive provisions of those requirements. 31 NERC Petition 22. In its Petition, NERC explains that it has addressed the Order No. 791 directive regarding the identify, assess, and correct language by removing the language from the 17 requirements that included the language in the CIP version 5 Standards. 32 NERC states that it is addressing the concerns underlying the development of the identify, assess, and correct language through transformation of its [Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program] and the implementation of a risk-based approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. 33 NERC explains that the changes it is making to the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program, outside the text of a reliability standard, directly accomplish the goal of the identify, assess, and correct language by focusing ERO and industry resources on those areas that pose a more-than-minimal risk to reliability and helping to improve internal controls. 34 Discussion 23. NERC s proposal to remove the identify, assess, and correct language from the 17 requirements that included the language in the CIP version 5 Standards, while 31 Id. P 67 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,242 at P 186). 32 NERC Petition at Id. at Id. at 18.
17 Docket No. RM retaining the substantive provisions of those requirements, reflects the Commission s preferred approach outlined in Order No Consistent with the rationale underlying the Order No. 791 directive, removing the identify, assess, and correct language avoids the possibility of inconsistent application and enforcement of the requirements at issue by eliminating the possibility of multiple interpretations of that language. 24. Accordingly, we propose to approve NERC s removal of the identify, assess, and correct language from the 17 affected requirements. B. Enhanced Security Controls for Low Impact Assets Order No In Order No. 791, the Commission approved NERC s new approach to categorizing BES Cyber Systems based on the High, Medium or Low Impact that each system could have on the reliable operation of the bulk electric system. Specifically, the Commission noted that the new tiered approach, which requires at least a minimum classification of Low Impact for BES Cyber Systems, better assures the protection of assets that can cause cyber security risks to the bulk electric system. 36 The Commission, however, raised concerns that the CIP version 5 Standards do not require any specific controls for BES Cyber Systems classified as Low Impact, nor do the standards contain clear, objective criteria to judge the sufficiency of the controls ultimately adopted by 35 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Id. P 87.
18 Docket No. RM responsible entities for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems. 37 The Commission concluded that the lack of objective criteria to evaluate any controls adopted under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-5, Requirement R2 introduces an unacceptable level of ambiguity and potential inconsistency into the compliance process, resulting in an unnecessary gap in reliability. 38 The Commission therefore directed NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop modifications to the CIP version 5 Standards to address the ambiguity and potential for inconsistency in the compliance process created by the lack of objective criteria pertaining to Low Impact BES Cyber Systems While not directing NERC to develop specific controls for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, the Commission noted that NERC could address the lack of objective criteria in a number of ways, including: (1) requiring specific controls for Low Impact assets, including subdividing the assets into different categories with different defined controls applicable to each subcategory; (2) developing objective criteria against which the controls adopted by responsible entities can be compared and measured in order to evaluate their adequacy, including subdividing the assets into different categories with different defined control objectives applicable to each subcategory; (3) defining with greater specificity the processes that responsible entities must have for Low Impact facilities under Reliability Standard CIP-003-5, Requirement R2; or (4) another equally 37 Id. P Id. P Id. P 108.
19 Docket No. RM efficient and effective solution. 40 Finally, the Commission emphasized that however NERC decides to address the Commission s concern, the criteria NERC proposes for evaluating a responsible entities protections for Low Impact facilities should be clear, objective, commensurate with their impact on the system, and technically justified. 41 NERC Petition 27. In its Petition, NERC states that the revised CIP Reliability Standards include additional specificity regarding the controls that responsible entities must implement for protecting their low impact BES Cyber Systems. 42 NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R1 requires responsible entities to develop cyber security policies for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems to communicate management s expectation for cybersecurity across the organization. 43 According to NERC, the cyber security policies required under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R1 must include the four subject matter areas addressed by proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R2, Attachment 1, and must be reviewed and approved by the CIP Senior Manager at least once every 15 calendar months. NERC explains that, while a responsible entity has the flexibility to develop either a single comprehensive cyber security policy or single high-level umbrella policy with detail provided in lower-level documents, the purpose of these policies is to communicate the responsible entity s management goals, objectives, and expectations for 40 Id. P Id. P 110.
20 Docket No. RM the protection of low impact BES Cyber Systems and establish a culture of security and compliance across the organization In addition, NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R2 requires responsible entities with Low Impact BES Cyber Systems to implement controls necessary to meet specific security objectives for: (1) cyber security awareness; (2) physical security controls; (3) electronic access controls; and (4) cyber security incident response. NERC explains further that while the four topics addressed by Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R2 are the same as those under the CIP version 5 Standards, focusing resources on the four identified subject matter areas will have the greatest cybersecurity benefit for low impact BES Cyber Systems without diverting resources necessary for the protection of high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems NERC explains further that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R2 provides responsible entities with flexibility to adopt security controls for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems in the manner that best suits the needs and characteristics of their organization, so long as the responsible entity can demonstrate that 42 NERC Petition at Id. at Id. at Id. at 25.
21 Docket No. RM it designed its controls to meet the ultimate security objective. 46 NERC states that attempts to overly prescribe specific security controls would be problematic and could inhibit the development of innovative security controls due to the diversity of Low Impact BES Cyber Systems. However, NERC explains that by having responsible entities articulate clear security objectives, the ERO and the Commission will have a basis from which to judge the sufficiency of the controls ultimately adopted by a responsible entity. 47 Discussion 30. We propose to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP NERC s proposal satisfies the Commission s Order No. 791 directive by providing responsible entities with a list of specific security objectives relevant to Low Impact BES Cyber Systems that must be addressed through one or more documented cyber security plans. Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R2 provides clarity regarding what is expected for compliance and requires responsible entities to implement specific security controls to meet the four subject matter areas identified by NERC to address the risks associated with Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, providing enhanced protections for Low Impact assets. 31. As noted above, Attachment 1 to revised CIP-003-6, Requirement R2 identifies four topics addressed by the requirement, and describes the affirmative obligations 46 Id. at Id. at 25.
22 Docket No. RM associated with each topic, including: (1) mandatory reinforcement of cyber security awareness practices at least once every 15 calendar months; (2) mandatory physical access controls to the asset or locations of the Low Impact BES Cyber Systems within the asset and Low Impact BES Cyber System Electronic Access Points, if any; (3) mandatory electronic access point protection to permit only necessary inbound and outbound bidirectional routable protocol access and mandatory authentication for all dialup connectivity that provides access to the Low Impact BES Cyber System; and (4) specific information to be included in incident response plans. We believe that Attachment 1 provides sufficient context to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of the procedures developed by a responsible entity to implement CIP and judge the sufficiency of the controls ultimately adopted by a responsible entity under its security plans. 32. Furthermore, we agree that NERC s proposal to use clear security objectives in lieu of specific security controls for each Low Impact system is reasonable owing to the diversity of assets covered under the Low Impact category. With respect to the security subject matter areas covered under proposed CIP-003-6, we believe that NERC s proposal is reasonable in relation to the risk posed by Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, as well as the diversity of systems captured by the Low Impact category. Therefore, we propose to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP C. Protection of Transient Devices Order No In Order No. 791, the Commission approved the proposed definition of BES Cyber Asset that provides, in part, that [a] Cyber Asset is not a BES Cyber Asset if, for
23 Docket No. RM consecutive calendar days or less, it is directly connected to a network within an [Electronic Security Perimeter], a Cyber Asset within an [Electronic Security Perimeter], or to a BES Cyber Asset, and it is used for data transfer, vulnerability assessment, maintenance, or troubleshooting purposes. 48 While the Commission had requested comment in the CIP version 5 NOPR on whether the 30 consecutive calendar day qualifier in the proposed definition of BES Cyber Asset could result in the introduction of malicious code or new attack vectors to an otherwise trusted and protected system, 49 the Commission concluded, based on comments, that it would be unduly burdensome to protect transient devices in the same manner as BES Cyber Assets because transient devices are portable and frequently connected and disconnected from systems While accepting the 30-day exemption in the BES Cyber Asset definition, the Commission reiterated its concern whether the provisions of the CIP version 5 Standards provide adequately robust protection from the risks posed by transient devices. 51 Therefore, the Commission directed that NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, develop either new or modified Reliability Standards to address the reliability risks posed by connecting transient devices to BES Cyber Assets and Systems. In particular, the Commission stated that it expects NERC to consider the following security elements 48 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, 143 FERC 61,055, at P 78 (2013) (CIP Version 5 NOPR). 50 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Id. P 132.
24 Docket No. RM for transient devices and removable media: (1) device authorization as it relates to users and locations; (2) software authorization; (3) security patch management; (4) malware prevention; (5) detection controls for unauthorized physical access to a transient device; and (6) processes and procedures for connecting transient devices to systems at different security classification levels (i.e., High, Medium, Low Impact). 52 NERC Petition 35. In its Petition, NERC states that the revised CIP Reliability Standards satisfy the Commission s directive in Order No. 791 by requiring that applicable entities: (1) develop plans and implement cybersecurity controls to protect Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media associated with their High Impact and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and associated Protected Cyber Assets; and (2) train their personnel on the risks associated with using Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media. NERC states that the purpose of the proposed revisions is to prevent unauthorized access to and use of transient devices, mitigate the risk of vulnerabilities associated with unpatched software on transient devices, and mitigate the risk of the introduction of malicious code on transient devices. NERC explains that the standard drafting team determined that the proposed requirements should only apply to transient devices associated with High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, concluding that the application of the proposed transient devices requirements to transient devices associated with low impact BES 52 Id. P 136.
25 Docket No. RM Cyber Systems was unnecessary, and likely counterproductive, given the risks low impact BES Cyber Systems present to the Bulk Electric System NERC proposes to add two terms to the NERC Glossary, Transient Cyber Asset and Removable Media, to clarify the types of transient devices subject to the CIP Reliability Standards. NERC also proposes to revise the definitions for BES Cyber Asset and Protected Cyber Asset to remove the 30-day exemption as the proposed definition for Transient Cyber Assets obviates the need for the 30-day exemption language. NERC indicates that, as defined, Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media do not provide reliability services and are not part of the BES Cyber System to which they are connected NERC proposes to define Transient Cyber Asset as: A Cyber Asset that (i) is capable of transmitting or transferring executable code, (ii) is not included in a BES Cyber System, (iii) is not a Protected Cyber Asset (PCA) and (iv) is directly connected (e.g., using Ethernet, serial, Universal Serial Bus, or wireless, including near field or Bluetooth communication) for 30 consecutive calendar days or less to a BES Cyber Asset, a network within an [Electronic Security Perimeter], or a [Protected Cyber Asset]. NERC explains that examples of Transient Cyber Assets include but are not limited to: diagnostic test equipment, packet sniffers, equipment used for BES Cyber System maintenance, equipment used for BES Cyber System configuration or equipment 53 NERC Petition at Id. at
26 Docket No. RM used to perform vulnerability assessments, and may include devices or platforms such as laptops, desktops or tablet computers which run applications that support BES Cyber Systems NERC proposes to define the term Removable Media as: Storage media that (i) are not Cyber Assets, (ii) are capable of transferring executable code, (iii) can be used to store, copy, move, or access data, and (iv) are directly connected for 30 consecutive calendar days or less to a BES Cyber Asset, a network within an [Electronic Security Perimeter] or a Protected Cyber Asset. Examples include but are not limited to floppy disks, compact disks, USB flash drives, external hard drives and other flash memory cards/drives that contain nonvolatile memory NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-2, Requirement R4 requires entities to document and implement a plan for managing and protecting Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media in order to protect BES Cyber Systems from the risks associated with transient devices. Specifically, Requirement R4 provides that [e]ach responsible entity for its high impact and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and associated Protected Cyber Assets, shall implement, except under CIP Exceptional Circumstances, one or more documented plans for Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media that include the sections in Attachment 1 [to the proposed standard]. NERC indicates that Attachment 1 does not prescribe a standard method or 55 Id. at Id. at 36.
27 Docket No. RM set of controls that each entity must implement to protect its transient devices, but rather requires responsible entities to meet certain security objectives by implementing the controls that the responsible entity determines are necessary to meet its affirmative obligation to protect BES Cyber Systems NERC further explains that Attachment 1 to CIP-010-2, Requirement R4 requires a responsible entity to adopt controls to address the following areas: (1) protections for Transient Cyber Assets managed by responsible entities; (2) protections for Transient Cyber Assets managed by another party; and (3) protections for Removable Media. NERC indicates that these provisions reflect the standard drafting team s recognition that the security controls required for a particular transient device must account for (1) the functionality of that device and (2) whether the responsible entity or a third party manages the device. NERC also states that, because Transient Cyber Assets and Removable Media have different capabilities, they present different levels of risk to the bulk electric system. 58 Discussion 41. Based on our review, proposed Reliability Standard CIP appears to provide a satisfactory level of security for transient devices used at High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. As described above, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-2, Requirement R4 addresses the following security elements: (1) device authorization; 57 Id. at Id. at 38.
28 Docket No. RM (2) software authorization; (3) security patch management; (4) malware prevention; and (5) unauthorized use. The proposed security controls, taken together, constitute a reasonable approach to address the reliability objectives outlined by the Commission in Order No The proposed security controls outlined in Attachment 1 should ensure that responsible entities apply multiple security controls to provide defense-in-depth protection to transient devices (i.e., transient cyber assets and removable media) in the High and Medium Impact BES Cyber System environments. 42. We are concerned, however, that NERC s proposed revisions do not provide adequate security controls to address the risks posed by transient devices used at Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, including Low Impact control centers, due to the limited applicability of Requirement R4. We believe that this omission may result in a gap in protection for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, malware inserted via a USB flash drive at a single Low Impact substation could propagate through a network of many substations without encountering a single security control under NERC s proposal. In addition, we note that Low Impact security controls do not provide for the use of mandatory anti-malware/antivirus protections within the Low Impact facilities, heightening the risk that malware or malicious code could propagate through these systems without being detected. 43. We do not believe that NERC has provided an adequate justification to limit the applicability of Reliability Standard CIP In its petition, NERC states that the application of the proposed transient devices requirements to transient devices associated with low impact BES Cyber Systems was unnecessary, and likely counterproductive,
29 Docket No. RM given the risks low impact BES Cyber Systems present to the Bulk Electric System. 59 Essentially, NERC posits that resources are better placed in the protection of High and Medium Impact devices. The burden of expanding the applicability of Reliability Standard CIP to transient devices at Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, however, is not clear from the information in the record. Nor is it clear what information and analysis led NERC to conclude that the application of the transient device requirements to Low Impact BES Cyber Systems was unnecessary. 60 Therefore, we direct NERC to provide additional information supporting the proposed limitation in Reliability Standard CIP to High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. Depending on the information provided, we may direct NERC to address the potential reliability gap by developing a solution, which could include modifying the applicability section of CIP-010-2, Requirement R4 to include Low Impact BES Cyber Systems, that effectively addresses, and is appropriately tailored to address, the risks posed by transient devices to Low Impact BES Cyber Systems. D. Protection of Bulk Electric System Communication Networks Order No In Order No. 791, the Commission approved a revised definition of the NERC Glossary term Cyber Asset, including the removal of the phrase communication networks. In reaching its decision, the Commission recognized that maintaining the 59 NERC Petition at Id.
30 Docket No. RM phrase communication networks in the definition of cyber asset could cause confusion and potentially complicate implementation of the CIP version 5 Standards as many communication network components, such as cabling, cannot strictly comply with the CIP Reliability Standards However, while the Commission approved the revised Cyber Asset definition, the Commission also directed NERC to create a definition of communication networks. Specifically, the Commission stated that [t]he definition of communication networks should define what equipment and components should be protected, in light of the statutory inclusion of communication networks for the reliable operation of the Bulk- Power System The Commission also directed NERC to develop new or modified Reliability Standards to address the reliability gap resulting from the removal of the phrase communication networks from the Cyber Asset definition. Specifically, the Commission found that a gap in protection may exist since the CIP version 5 Standards do not address security controls needed to protect the nonprogrammable components of communication networks. 63 The Commission explained that the new or modified Reliability Standards should require appropriate and reasonable controls to protect the 61 Order No. 791, 145 FERC 61,160 at P Id. P Id. P 149.
31 Docket No. RM non-programmable aspects of communication networks. 64 The Commission provided examples of other relevant information security standards that address the protection of the nonprogrammable aspects of communication networks by requiring, among other things, locked wiring closets, disconnected or locked spare jacks, protection of cabling by conduit or cable trays, or generally emphasizing the protection of communication network cabling from interception or damage. 65 NERC Petition 47. In its petition, NERC states that the standard drafting team concluded that it did not need to create a new definition for communication networks to address the Commission s concerns. NERC explains that the term communication network is generally understood to encompass both programmable and nonprogrammable components (i.e., a communication network includes computer peripherals, terminals, and databases as well as communication mediums such as wires). 66 Therefore, NERC concludes that any proposed definition of communication network would need to be sufficiently broad to encompass all components in a communication network as they exist 64 Id. P Id. P 149 (referencing NIST SP Revision 3, security control family Physical and Environmental Protection, Annex 2, page 54; BSI ISO/IEC (2005). Information technology Security techniques Information security management systems Requirements (ISO/IEC 27001:2005).British Standards Institute). 66 NERC Petition at 52 (citing North American Electric Reliability Corp., 142 FERC 61,203, at PP (2013)).
32 Docket No. RM now and in the future. 67 NERC explains that, based on that conclusion, the standard drafting team identified the types of equipment and components that responsible entities must protect, and developed reasonable controls to secure those components based on the risk they pose to the bulk electric system, rather than develop a specific definition. 48. NERC states that the revised CIP Reliability Standards, as proposed, address the ultimate security objective of protecting both the programmable and nonprogrammable components of communication networks. 68 NERC explains that the proposed standards include protections for cables and other nonprogrammable components of communication networks through proposed Reliability Standard CIP-006-6, Requirement R1, Part 1.10, which augments the existing protections for programmable communication components by requiring entities to implement various security controls to restrict and manage physical access to Physical Security Perimeters. 69 NERC further states that the standard drafting team focused on nonprogrammable communication components at control centers with High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems because those locations present a heightened risk to the Bulk-Power System, warranting the increased protections Id. at Id. 69 Id. at Id. at 48.
33 Docket No. RM NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-006-6, Requirement R1, Part 1.10 provides that, for High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated Protected Cyber Assets, responsible entities must restrict physical access to cabling and other nonprogrammable communication components used for connection between covered Cyber Assets within the same Electronic Security Perimeter in those instances when such cabling and components are located outside of a Physical Security Perimeter. NERC explains further that, where physical access restrictions to such cabling and components are not feasible, Part 1.10 provides that the responsible entity must document and implement encryption of data transmitted over such cabling and components and/or monitor the status of the communication link composed of such cabling and components. Further, pursuant to Part 1.10, a responsible entity must issue an alarm or alert in response to detected communication failures to the personnel identified in the BES Cyber Security Incident response plan within 15 minutes of detection, or implement an equally effective logical protection NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP provides flexibility for responsible entities to implement the physical security measures that best suit their needs and to account for configurations where logical measures are necessary because the entity cannot implement physical access restrictions effectively. Responsible entities have the discretion as to the type of physical or logical protections to implement pursuant to 71 Id. at
Notable Changes to NERC Reliability Standard CIP-010-3
C L AR I T Y AS S U R AN C E R E S U LT S M I D W E S T R E LIAB I L I T Y ORGAN I Z AT I ON Notable Changes to NERC Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 Cyber Security Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability
Cyber Security Standards Update: Version 5
Cyber Security Standards Update: Version 5 January 17, 2013 Scott Mix, CISSP CIP Technical Manager Agenda Version 5 Impact Levels Format Features 2 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY CIP Standards Version 5 CIP
Cyber Security Standards Update: Version 5 with Revisions
Cyber Security Standards Update: Version 5 with Revisions Security Reliability Program 2015 Agenda CIP Standards History Version 5 Format Impact Levels NOPR Final Rule References 2 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MIGRATING TO THE VERSION 5 NERC CIP CYBER SECURITY STANDARDS
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR MIGRATING TO THE VERSION 5 NERC CIP CYBER SECURITY STANDARDS Lenny Mansell Director, Consulting Services 1 January 29, 2014 AGENDA Introduction Multiple paradigm shifts ahead How
TOP 10 CHALLENGES. With suggested solutions
NERC CIP VERSION 5 TOP 10 CHALLENGES With suggested solutions 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78791 Phone: 512-687- 6224 E- Mail: chumphreys@theanfieldgroup.com Web: www.theanfieldgroup.com
CIP-003-6 R2 BES Assets Containing Low Impact BCS. Lisa Wood, CISA, CBRA, CBRM Compliance Auditor Cyber Security
CIP-003-6 R2 BES Assets Containing Low Impact BCS Lisa Wood, CISA, CBRA, CBRM Compliance Auditor Cyber Security Slide 2 About Me Been with WECC for 5 years 1 ½ years as a Compliance Program Coordinator
CIP v5/v6 Implementation Plan CIP v5 Workshop. Tony Purgar October 2-3, 2014
CIP v5/v6 Implementation Plan CIP v5 Workshop Tony Purgar October 2-3, 2014 Revision History CIP v5/v6 Implementation Plan Change History Date Description Initial Release July 25, 2014 Revision V0.1 August-2014
NB Appendix CIP-004-5.1-NB-1 - Cyber Security Personnel & Training
Lisa Wood, Compliance Auditor, Cyber Security, CISA, CBRM, CBRA. CIP R2 Low Impact Assets (LIA) Update January 29, 2015
Lisa Wood, Compliance Auditor, Cyber Security, CISA, CBRM, CBRA CIP-003-7 R2 Low Impact Assets (LIA) Update January 29, 2015 Agenda Low Impact Progress Anticipated Dates Low Impact Requirement and Implementation
power eng.com http://www.power eng.com/articles/npi/print/volume 8/issue 5/nucleus/fundamental issues nuclear generators lead cybersecurity.html Fundamental Issues: Nuclear Generators Lead Cyber Security
Alberta Reliability Standard Cyber Security Implementation Plan for Version 5 CIP Security Standards CIP-PLAN-AB-1
External Consultation Draft Version 1.0 December 12, 2013 1. Purpose The purpose of this reliability standard is to set the effective dates for the Version 5 CIP Cyber Security reliability standards and