As cyber threats have grown in sophistication, federal efforts to address them have evolved. Presidential Decision Directive 63, signed in May 1998, established a structure under White House leadership to coordinate the activities of designated lead departments and agencies, in partnership with their counterparts from the private sector, to eliminate any significant vulnerabilities to both physical and cyber attacks on our critical infrastructures, including computer systems. National cyber policy was updated in 2003 with The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. Presidential Decision Directive 63 was superseded later that year by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, which assigned the Secretary of Homeland Security responsibility for coordinating the nation’s overall critical infrastructure protection efforts, including protection of the cyber infrastructure, across all sectors (federal, state, local, and private) working in cooperation with designated sector-specific agencies within the executive branch. Both of these policies focused on defensive strategies, and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 did not emphasize protection of federal government information systems. Subsequent classified presidential directives and strategic planning documents have continued to reflect evolving federal policy in response to cyber threats. Recognizing the need for common solutions to improve cybersecurity, the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and various federal agencies have launched or continued several governmentwide initiatives that are intended to enhance information security at federal agencies. According to Director of National Intelligence implementing guidance, in 2008 the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative was begun in order to develop an approach to address current threats, anticipate future threats and technologies, and foster innovative public-private partnerships. It was created to bridge cyber-related missions for federal agencies, by asking them to undertake a set of 12 initiatives and 7 strategic enabling activities. According to DOD officials, these initiatives include defensive, offensive, research and development, and counterintelligence efforts. Programs focus primarily on the security of executive-branch networks, which represent only a fraction of the global information and communications infrastructure on which the United States depends. In May 2009, the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council completed a 60-day interagency review intended to assess U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity and outline initial areas for action. The resulting report recommended, among other things, appointing an official in the White House to coordinate the nation’s cybersecurity policies and activities, preparing an updated national cybersecurity strategy, developing a framework for cyber research and development, and continuing to evaluate the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiatives. Following the lead of federal government efforts, DOD initiated several efforts to develop policy and guidance on cyberspace operations. In 2006 and 2007, The National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations and associated Implementation Plan provided a strategy for the U.S. military to achieve military superiority in cyberspace and established a military strategic framework that orients and focuses DOD action in the areas of military, intelligence, and business operation in and through cyberspace. In 2008, U.S. Strategic Command developed the Operational Concept for Cyberspace, which identifies near-term concepts to improve operations in and through cyberspace and gain superiority over potential adversaries in support of national objectives. The 2009 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report discussed efforts by the Cyber Issue Team, jointly led by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and U.S. Strategic Command, which addressed cyberspace issues related to developing, structuring, and employing the cyberspace force. Also in 2009, U.S. Strategic Command developed an Operations Order titled Operation Gladiator Phoenix to provide DOD with a strategic framework to operate, secure, and defend the global information grid. As early as 2006, the Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted the department’s need to be capable of shaping and defending cyberspace. DOD published a new Quadrennial Defense Review in February 2010, which designated cyberspace operations as a key mission area and discussed steps the department was taking to strengthen capabilities in the cyber domain, including centralizing command of cyber operations and enhancing partnerships with other agencies and governments. Currently, DOD continues to develop and update cyberspace policies. Different types of cybersecurity threats from numerous sources may adversely affect computers, software, networks, agency operations, industry, or the Internet itself. Cyber threats to federal information systems continue to evolve and grow. These threats can be unintentional or intentional, targeted or nontargeted, and can come from a variety of sources. Unintentional threats can be caused by inattentive or untrained employees, software upgrades, maintenance procedures, and equipment failures that inadvertently disrupt systems or corrupt data. Intentional threats include both targeted and nontargeted attacks. An attack is considered to be targeted when a group or individual attacks a specific system or cyber-based critical infrastructure. A nontargeted attack occurs when the intended target of the attack is uncertain, such as when a virus, worm, or other malicious software is released on the Internet with no specific target. Government officials are concerned about cyber attacks from individuals and groups with malicious intent, such as criminals, terrorists, and adversarial foreign nations. Threats to DOD computer networks posed by the intelligence branches of foreign countries and hackers alike represent an unprecedented national security challenge. For example, in February 2009, the Director of National Intelligence testified that foreign nations and criminals have targeted government and private-sector networks to gain a competitive advantage and potentially disrupt or destroy them, and that terrorist groups have expressed a desire to use cyber attacks as a means to target the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also identified multiple sources of threats to our nation’s critical information systems, including foreign nations engaged in espionage and information warfare, domestic criminals, hackers, virus writers, and disgruntled employees and contractors working within an organization. Table 1 summarizes those groups or individuals that are considered to be key sources of cyber threats to our nation’s information systems and cyber infrastructures. These groups and individuals have a variety of attack techniques at their disposal. Furthermore, as we have previously reported, the techniques have characteristics that can vastly enhance the reach and effect of their actions, such as the following:  Attackers do not need to be physically close to their targets to perpetrate a cyber attack.  Technology allows actions to easily cross multiple state and national borders.  Attacks can be carried out automatically, at high speed, and by attacking a vast number of victims at the same time.  Attackers can more easily remain anonymous. Table 2 identifies the types and techniques of cyber attacks that are commonly used. Various terms are used within the DOD cyberspace domain. For example, in May 2008, DOD defined cyberspace as the “global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers.” Also, DOD defines computer network defense as actions taken to protect, monitor, analyze, detect, and respond to unauthorized activity within DOD information systems and computer networks. For further discussion of policies, programs, and tools that DOD uses to protect its networks, see appendix III. Table 3 lists several key terms used within the DOD cyberspace domain. DOD’s organization to address cybersecurity threats is decentralized and spread across various offices, commands, military services, and military agencies. DOD cybersecurity roles and responsibilities are vast and include developing joint policy and guidance and operational functions to protect and defend its computer networks. DOD is taking proactive measures to better address cybersecurity threats, such as developing new organizational structures, led by the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command, to facilitate the integration of cyberspace operations. Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities within DOD are spread across various DOD components. The current cybersecurity organizational structure is decentralized and there are many DOD components that hold responsibilities. Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities include developing joint policy and guidance and operational functions to defend and secure DOD networks, and are spread among the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, functional and geographic combatant commands, military services, and military agencies. According to DOD officials, to ensure a holistic approach and limit potential stovepiping, the department has begun to develop cybersecurity expertise across various offices. Figure 1 illustrates DOD’s cyber organization as of March 2010. Additionally, there are other organizations that play a pivotal role in cybersecurity, such as the DOD intelligence agencies, National Guard, and defense criminal investigative organizations. DOD is taking proactive measures to reorganize and develop new organizational structures to better address cybersecurity threats. However, it is too early to tell if these organizational changes will help DOD better address cybersecurity threats. There are several offices within both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff that share responsibility for developing joint cyber policy, guidance, and doctrine for DOD activities that occur in and through cyberspace. For example, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration; and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, all share responsibility for developing joint cyber policy and guidance. For example, according to DOD officials, both the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy have responsibility for strategic-level guidance and oversight for computer network operations and information assurance. Appendix II provides more detailed information on the cyber-related responsibilities of the DOD offices. Several offices within the Joint Staff also hold responsibilities for developing joint cyber policy, guidance, and doctrine for DOD activities that occur in and through cyberspace. The Joint Staff’s cyber responsibilities include establishing and developing doctrine, policies, and associated joint tactics, techniques, and procedures for DOD’s global information grid, information assurance, and joint and combined operations. According to DOD directive O-3600.01, the Joint Staff is to develop and maintain joint doctrine for core, supporting, and related information operations capabilities in joint operations and ensure that all joint education, training, plans, and operations are consistent with information operations policy, strategy, and doctrine. The Joint Staff is also responsible for developing, coordinating, and disseminating information assurance policies and doctrine for joint operations. Additionally, several Joint Staff divisions and Joint Staff–led coordination forums have cybersecurity responsibilities. The U.S. Joint Forces Command also has doctrine development and operational roles. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02B establishes U.S. Joint Forces Command as a voting member of the joint doctrine development community, responsible for developing and submitting recommendations for improving existing joint doctrine or initiating new joint doctrine projects and conducting front-end analyses of all joint doctrine project proposals and providing appropriate recommendations. Moreover, as with all other combatant commands, U.S. Joint Forces Command is responsible for conducting computer network defense to secure its portion of the DOD global information grid, including developing and implementing information operations and information assurance programs and activities. DOD also has numerous organizations with operational roles and responsibilities to defend and secure DOD computer networks. U.S. Strategic Command is considered the lead for cyberspace operations within DOD. According to the 2008 Unified Command Plan, U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for synchronizing DOD’s planning for cyberspace operations, and it does so in coordination with other combatant commands, the military services, and defense agencies. In order to operationalize its missions, U.S. Strategic Command delegated operational and tactical-level planning, force execution, and day-to-day management of forces to its joint functional component commands. Prior to the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command, these component commands conducted cyberspace-related operations for the U.S. Strategic Command while headquarters focuses on strategic-level integration and advocacy. These component commands were as follows: Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare (JFCC NW), which was responsible for planning, integrating, and coordinating cyberspace capabilities and integrating with all necessary computer network operations capabilities. Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations, which was responsible for DOD’s global network operations and directing the operation and defense of DOD’s global information grid. Joint Information Operations Warfare Center, which is the lead entity responsible for planning, integrating, synchronizing, and advocating for information operations across DOD including computer network operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security. In June 2009, as part of the creation of U.S. Cyber Command, U.S. Strategic Command was directed by the Secretary of Defense to disestablish Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations and Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare in preparation for U.S. Cyber Command reaching its full operating capability, planned for October 2010. Additionally, the military departments were directed to identify and provide appropriate component support to U.S. Cyber Command to be in place and functioning by that same date. Other combatant commands also have operational roles and responsibilities for defending and securing DOD computer networks. According to DOD Directive 8500.01E, the combatant commands must also develop and implement their own information assurance programs for their respective portions of the DOD global information grid and must provide training and education for their information assurance personnel. Certain combatant commands have unique responsibilities. For instance, U.S. Northern Command has specific responsibilities and is the DOD lead in assisting the Department of Homeland Security and other civilian agencies during cyber-related incidents as part of its Defense Support of Civil Authorities missions—or civil support. During these incidents, U.S. Northern Command—and in some instances U.S. Pacific Command—will be supported by U.S. Strategic Command. Functional combatant commands have a global mission and a global requirement for network operations support. Some functional combatant commands, such as U.S. Special Operations Command, operate their own specific functional global networks. The military service components have a significant role in providing cybersecurity while operating and defending their respective networks within DOD’s global information grid. In their role, each military service is responsible for fielding, training, and equipping cyberspace forces. They also protect, defend, and conduct restoration measures for the networks they control, and ensure that service-managed portions of DOD’s global information grid are secure and interoperable, with appropriate information assurance and trained personnel. Appendix II has more information on the military services’ current cyber organization. Defense agencies also share responsibilities related to cyber operations. For example, the Defense Information Systems Agency is a combat support agency responsible for the day-to-day management of DOD’s global information grid, communication and computer-based information systems, and performs significant network operations support functions. Together with the military services, the agency has the responsibility to build, maintain, and operate DOD’s global information grid. It is also responsible for employing information assurance operations and securing DOD’s enterprise systems. The agency reports to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network and Information Integration, and its director also currently commands Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations. There are many other agencies and organizations that support DOD cyber efforts, including the DOD intelligence agencies, the National Guard, and defense criminal investigative organizations. The intelligence agencies play an integral role in enhancing cybersecurity both by increasing our ability to detect and identify adversary cyber activity and by expanding our knowledge of the capabilities, intentions, and cyber vulnerabilities of our adversaries. For example, the National Security Agency provides information assurance support to DOD, prescribes minimum standards for protecting national security systems, and provides warning support to other DOD components. The Director of the National Security Agency was also designated to serve as commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare. The Defense Intelligence Agency is a combat support agency that provides all-source intelligence to combatant commanders, defense planners, and national security policymakers, as well as manages, operates, and maintains its own network and information assurance program. The Office of the Director for National Intelligence provides direction for signals intelligence collection in cyberspace through the National Intelligence Strategy and National Intelligence Priority Framework.The National Guard—comprising the Army National Guard and Air National Guard—provides cyber capabilities to meet military service and combatant commander requirements and can be leveraged under state authorities to assist civil authorities. According to Air National Guard officials, skilled personnel that come from information technology, banking, and other sectors have been utilized to provide cyber capabilities to agencies with insufficient manpower. Defense criminal investigative organizations conduct cyber-related criminal and counterintelligence investigations that may involve offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code. These organizations include: (1) the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; (2) the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; (3) the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; (4) the Army Criminal Investigation Command; (5) Army Counterintelligence, and the related DOD Cyber Crime Center. DOD is taking proactive measures to reorganize and develop new organizational structures to better address cybersecurity threats. As a result of significant cyber challenges and organizational constraints, DOD is conducting a multitiered organizational restructuring for cyber organizations, including the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command, and changes within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services. The establishment of U.S. Cyber Command is DOD’s primary organizational change to better address cybersecurity threats. On June 23, 2009, the Secretary of Defense signed a memorandum directing U.S. Strategic Command to establish the U.S. Cyber Command as a subordinate unified command with responsibility for military cyberspace operations. In this memorandum, the Secretary of Defense stressed the new national security risks that arise from DOD’s increasing dependency on cyberspace and the growing array of cyber threats and vulnerabilities. DOD has recognized that it lacks integration of computer network operations at the command and operational levels. DOD anticipates that the U.S. Cyber Command will focus on the integration of cyberspace operations, will synchronize DOD cyber missions and warfighting efforts, and will provide support to civil authorities and international partners. The Secretary of Defense recommended that the director of the National Security Agency become the commander of the U.S. Cyber Command and that the command retain current authorities to conduct cyberspace responsibilities that had been given to the U.S. Strategic Command in the 2008 Unified Command Plan. Additionally, U.S. Strategic Command will delegate its cyberspace missions to U.S. Cyber Command in a phased approach. Initial operating capability was established in October 2009; and full operational capability is anticipated in October 2010. By full operational capability, U.S. Strategic Command will disestablish both the Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations and the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare, and their existing personnel will be incorporated into the new subunified command. As a result, the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency will relinquish all duties as the Commander of the Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations. However, the Defense Information Systems Agency will establish a field office and a support element at U.S. Cyber Command to ensure an operational linkage between the new command and the agency. The Secretary of Defense also directed actions in his own office and in each military service intended to improve the diffuse efforts related to cyberspace operations. In response, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is leading a review of policy and strategy to develop a comprehensive approach to DOD cyberspace operations. Additionally, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is conducting an organizational realignment to better address cybersecurity. The office created a separate division—Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber and Space Policy—to be a central focal point for cyberspace policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The military services are also working to identify and provide appropriate component support to the U.S. Cyber Command prior to its full operational capability in October 2010. The military services are developing and implementing the following new initiatives. On January 29, 2010, the U.S. Navy established the Fleet Cyber Command, 10th Fleet to provide component support to the U.S. Cyber Command. The Air Force initially planned to establish a major cyber command. Instead, it stood up the 24th Air Force which will provide cyber forces and capabilities to the U.S. Cyber Command. The Army plans to support the U.S. Cyber Command through the Army Forces Cyber, and the Marine Corps established Marine Forces Cyber. DOD officials we interviewed expressed varying opinions on whether the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command will help DOD better address cybersecurity threats. Many officials with whom we spoke said that it was a step in the right direction as the command will potentially provide a single point of accountability for cyber-related issues. Additionally, the Joint Staff concluded that a four-star subunified Cyber Command under U.S. Strategic Command, dual-hatted as the Director of the National Security Agency, would be the most effective way to address the need to better integrate cyber defense, attack, exploitation, and network operations. However, officials from some combatant commands expressed concern about the command’s close relationship to the DOD intelligence community. These officials believed that with the Director of the National Security Agency dual-hatted as the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, the U.S. Cyber Command will become too focused on intelligence structures in detriment to a focus on operations in support of the combatant commands. Additionally, DOD officials expressed some concern regarding the reduced role of the Defense Information Systems Agency with respect to the U.S. Cyber Command. The agency head was previously also the Commander of the Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations. Under the new relationship, the Defense Information Systems Agency will continue to provide network and information assurance technical assistance through a field office and a support element at U.S. Cyber Command. Several joint doctrine publications address aspects of cyberspace operations, but DOD officials acknowledge that this is insufficient. None of the joint publications that mention “cyberspace operations” contains a sufficient discussion of cyberspace operations. DOD doctrine also lacks key common definitions. DOD recognizes the need to develop and update cyber-related joint doctrine and is currently debating the merits of developing a single cyberspace operations joint doctrine publication in addition to updating all existing doctrine. However, there is no timetable for completing the decision-making process or for updates to existing doctrine. DOD has numerous joint doctrine publications that discuss cyber-related topics; however, the content is incomplete or out of date and DOD lacks joint doctrine that fully addresses cyberspace operations. The discussion of cyber-related topics in current joint doctrine publications is limited and insufficient, leaving problems such as incomplete definitions. Other discussions—such as what constitutes a cyber force—are not uniformly defined across DOD doctrine publications and guidance. DOD recognizes the need to develop and update cyber-related joint doctrine and is currently debating the merits of developing a single, overarching cyber joint doctrine publication in addition to updating all existing doctrine with respect to cyberspace operations. However, DOD has not set a timetable for the completion of these efforts. According to DOD, the purpose of joint doctrine is to enhance the operational effectiveness of U.S. forces. Joint doctrine consists of fundamental principles to guide the employment of U.S. military forces in coordinated action toward a common objective and should include key terms, tactics, techniques, and procedures. In order to be effective, combatant commands and military services need to understand the joint functions within the domain and the manner in which those joint functions are integrated globally as well as operationally. The cyberspace domain is inherently joint; it cuts across all combatant commands, military services, and agency boundaries and supports engagement operations for all geographic combatant commands. Therefore, DOD expects that a joint publication focusing on all aspects of cyberspace operation will not only enhance the operational effectiveness and performance of joint U.S forces but also provide a doctrinal basis for collaborative planning and interagency coordination. DOD determined that it has addressed cyberspace-related topics in at least 16 DOD joint doctrine publications and mentions “cyberspace operations” in at least 8 joint publications. This reflects the importance of cyber-related issues across the body of joint doctrine. However, according to combatant command officials, the discussions and content in these publications are insufficient and do not completely address cyberspace operations or contain critical related definitions. U.S. Joint Forces Command’s assessment of the existing state of joint doctrine for cyber issues concluded that while the term “cyberspace operations” was addressed or mentioned in 8 approved and draft publications, none contained a significant discussion of cyberspace operations. U.S. Joint Forces Command’s assessment of DOD joint publications showed that the majority of references to cyberspace operations come from Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations—the current publication with the most relevance to cyber issues. While this publication may have been sufficient for its intentioned purposes at the time it was written in 2006, U.S. Strategic Command reported that Information Operations should be revised to use updated cyberspace terminology and content. U.S. Strategic Command reported that the publication is not currently sufficient and does not provide a basis for cyberspace joint doctrine for 3 key reasons. First, its definition of cyberspace does not reflect the scope of the current definition of cyberspace that was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in May 2008. The definition in the publication restricts cyberspace to “digital information communicated over computer networks,” while the current approved definition recognizes cyberspace as a global domain within the information environment that includes the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers. Second, the publication discusses computer network operations as a component of information operations by grouping it with military deception, operation security, psychological operations, and electronic warfare; but it does not recognize the scope of computer network operations as a warfighting domain. Third, Joint Publication 3-13 omits integral elements in the discussion of computer network operations that are important to provide a complete view and scope of cyberspace operations. For example, the publication discusses computer network attack and computer network defense but does not thoroughly address key elements such as computer network defense response actions, computer network attack–operational preparation of the environment, or network operations. Our analysis of the current usage of cyber-related terms confirms that these are considered important elements of both computer network operations and cyberspace operations. Another example of the shortfall in existing doctrine is the lack of a common definition for what constitutes cyber personnel in DOD. According to a U.S. Joint Forces Command report, the cyberspace operations community lacks a common dictionary of terms, and the terms defined in current doctrine are not used uniformly. This can cause confusion in planning for adequate types and numbers of personnel. Because career paths and skill sets are scattered across various career identifiers, the military services and commands vary in their scope and definitions of what constitutes cyber personnel. As a result, there are cases in which the same cyber-related term may mean something different among the services. In another report, the U.S. Joint Forces Command found that 18 different cyber position titles across combatant commands are used to identify cyberspace forces. Some of these titles may be inconsistent from command to command and are likely to be duplicates. According to the report, U.S. Pacific Command had the largest number of cyber personnel positions and position titles compared to other combatant commands, while some commands reported no cyber personnel. This may be due in part to duplicative and differing definitions among the combatant commands of what constitutes cyber personnel. Examples of cyberspace-related position titles from combatant commands include  Computer Network Attack Intelligence Officer,  Computer Network Attack Ops Officer,  Computer Network Attack Ops Planner,  Computer Network Attack Planner,  Computer Network Attack Weapons Risk Assessor,  Computer Network Defense Planner,  Computer Network Operations Exercises Officer,  Computer Network Operations Planner,  Computer Network Operations Technician,      Network Attack Planner,  Network Defender,  Network Defense Planner,  Network Warfare Planner, and Information Assurance Support Person, Intelligence Support to Computer Network Attack, Intelligence Support to Computer Network Defense, Intelligence Systems Officer / Computer Network Defense, The lack of clear guidance on cyber personnel in joint doctrine is also reflected in the military services. The military services do not currently have specific job identifiers for cyberspace operations, and cyberspace- related jobs are generally identified under the umbrella of intelligence, communication, or command and control. While the military services bring unique capabilities based upon their individual core competencies, cyberspace forces must meet joint standards. U.S. Joint Forces Command, whose mission is to synchronize global forces, reported that it is unable to quickly and easily identify personnel who are certified for cyber operations, as there is no identifier in the personnel records that indicate if the individual is a “cyber warrior.” Additionally, U.S. Strategic Command reviewed current military service cyber force identifiers and reported that the Air Force identifies computer-related careers under “general” for enlisted personnel and under “non-technical” skills for officers; the Navy identifies computer network operation careers under “information warfare” for officers and “information systems technicians” or “intelligence and communications” for enlisted personnel. DOD recognizes the need to update and improve cyber-related joint doctrine. According to DOD, joint doctrine is being revised and updated and will include refined discussion of cyber-related issues. The U.S. Joint Forces Command’s assessment of the status of cyber-related joint doctrine reported that 14 of the 16 publications that discuss cyberspace- related issues are in various stages of review or revision and that virtually all will contain additional information that is consistent with the new definitions for cyberspace and cyberspace operations. The report also states that while pending revisions to various joint publications could provide the necessary coverage of these topics, the degree of coverage is not known until the draft revisions are available for review and comment. Ibid. doctrine are completed. However, until the revised doctrine publications are released, the full extent of the changes and their inclusion of cyber- related information will be unknown. While all of these efforts represent significant progress toward enhancing joint doctrine, there is no timetable for the completion of all cyber-related updates to existing joint publications. DOD is also currently debating the merits of developing a single, overarching cyber joint doctrine publication in addition to updating all existing doctrine. Separate joint doctrine publications are devoted to other major elements of operations in various “domains,” including such topics as mine warfare, amphibious operations, urban operations, operations other than war, counterdrug operations, and space operations. In 2007 the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations Implementation Plan tasked a number of DOD commands and organizations with cyber-related studies, some of which evaluated cyber- related joint doctrine. There has subsequently been broad agreement within DOD about the need for improved joint doctrine. However, not all commands agreed about the need for a separate cyber-specific doctrine publication. Table 4 provides examples of some of the conclusions and recommendations stemming from studies related to cyber joint doctrine. In May of 2009, U.S. Strategic Command proposed the development of an overarching joint publication for cyberspace operations dedicated to all aspects of cyberspace operations. As the DOD command responsible for evaluating joint doctrine proposals, U.S. Joint Forces Command conducted a Front End Analysis that reviewed and analyzed the proposal to determine if a doctrinal void exists and if the proposal is appropriate for inclusion in the doctrine community. Additionally, the U.S. Joint Forces Command officials we spoke with expressed concern about developing a separate cyber joint publication and that this might create inefficiencies and disconnects with existing related doctrine in such areas as information operations. The Front End Analysis recommended that further consideration of a separate joint doctrine publication be postponed and that U.S. Strategic Command develop a joint test publication for cyberspace operations. In September 2009, the Joint Staff approved the development of the cyberspace operations joint test publication. A joint test publication is a proposed version of a joint doctrine that normally contains contentious issues. After the test publication is developed, it will be evaluated through U.S. Joint Forces Command, resulting in one of the following recommendations: (1) that DOD convert the cyber joint test publication into a joint publication; (2) that DOD incorporate the joint test publication or portions of it into existing joint publications; or (3) that DOD determine that the cyber joint test publication is not sufficient and discontinues work on it with no effect on joint doctrine. A test publication is not considered approved doctrine. The Joint Staff established a milestone of June 2010 for completion of the draft test publication. The Joint Staff told us it expects evaluation of the test publication to take 6 to 12 months. However, DOD has not determined a completion date for the evaluation or for the final decision on the joint test publication as part of the test publication development plan. Regardless of whether DOD proceeds with developing a separate joint doctrine, completion of its effort to update existing doctrine is crucial to further improve the understanding of key cyber-related terms and operational issues throughout DOD. According to DOD’s principal guidance for joint doctrine development, joint doctrine must evolve as the United States strives to meet national security challenges, and doctrinal voids are identified. Providing a baseline of common definitions and operational constructs for cyber operations in existing doctrine or in a separate overarching publication would provide the basis for future adaptation. DOD’s well-established joint doctrine development processes provides a sound structure to assess all aspects of cyber operations, propose doctrinal change or creation, and establish clear time frames for completing interim and final efforts. The lack of a time frame for cyber doctrine makes it difficult for DOD to plan for additional efforts that rely on doctrine and may permit delay while service and joint officials continue to debate the possible future of cyber operations rather than concentrate on establishing a solid basis upon which future efforts can be built. DOD has assigned authorities and responsibilities for implementing cyberspace operations among combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies. However, the supporting relationships necessary to achieve command and control of cyberspace operations remain unclear. In response to a major computer infection in 2008, U.S. Strategic Command identified confusion regarding command and control authorities and chains of command because the exploited network fell under the purview of both its own command and a geographic combatant command. DOD-commissioned studies have recommended command and control improvements. Lines of command and control of cyber forces are divided among U.S. Strategic Command, the geographic combatant commands, and the military services, through several policy and guidance documents. The National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, the 2008 Unified Command Plan, DOD Directive O-8530.1, and the Standing Rules of Engagement are all relevant to command and control of cyberspace operations, but they sometimes conflict with each other and remain unclear because of overlapping responsibilities. The National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, issued in December 2006, demonstrates DOD’s recognition that clear command and control relationships are necessary for the successful application of military power in cyberspace. The purpose of this strategy is to establish a common understanding of cyberspace and set forth a military strategic framework that orients and focuses DOD action in the areas of military, intelligence, and business operations in and through cyberspace. According to the strategy, the United States can achieve superiority in cyberspace only if command relationships are clearly defined and executed, and must support unity of effort in achieving combatant commanders’ missions as well as maintaining freedom of action in cyberspace. The strategy also states that cyberspace provides the foundation for command and control of military operations in other domains and that, due to the nature of cyberspace, command and control requires extremely short decision-making cycles. According to the strategy, effective command and control integrates, deconflicts, and synchronizes cyberspace operations at the speeds required for achieving awareness and generating effects, while failure to establish an integrated structure can hinder collaboration and lengthen decision-making cycles. The 2008 Unified Command Plan gave specific responsibilities for synchronizing planning for cyberspace operations to U.S. Strategic Command, including directing global information grid operations and defense, planning against designated cyberspace threats, coordinating with other combatant commands and U.S. government agencies, and executing cyberspace operations. The Unified Command Plan also states that, unless otherwise directed, combatant commanders will exercise command authority over all commands and forces assigned to them, in accordance with section 164 of title 10 of the U.S. Code. However, while individual service networks may reside within the area of responsibility of a particular geographic combatant command, that geographic commander does not possess the authority to direct the network operations of his component organizations, because those component networks are owned and directed by their respective service organizations through their role as Computer Network Defense Service Providers (defined within DOD Directive O-8530). This establishes a conflicting situation that affects the geographic combatant commanders’ visibility over networks in their areas of responsibility. Also, the Standing Rules of Engagement state that unit commanders always retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise unit self- defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. This generally extends to commanders conducting information operations and includes the authorization to conduct protective, defensive, and restorative measures for the networks they control in response to all unauthorized network activity. However, when defensive measures would have potentially adverse effects across multiple DOD networks or on adversary or intermediary networks outside the DOD global information grid, they must be approved by the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, under his responsibility for DOD-wide network operations, and coordinated with affected components and appropriate law enforcement or intelligence organizations. An incident of malware infection on DOD systems in 2008 illustrated that a lack of operational clarity significantly slowed down DOD’s response. As a result of this malware eradication effort, U.S. Strategic Command identified confusion regarding the exploited networks. This led to uncoordinated, conflicting, and unsynchronized guidance in response to the incident being issued in several forms via multiple channels. Our review confirmed that multiple directives contributed to confusion at the execution level, leaving operators and administrators to reconcile priorities and question which procedures were appropriate and most urgent to address the malware infection. Although DOD intends for the new U.S. Cyber Command to facilitate command and control, as late as December 2009, DOD noted that these problems had not been fully addressed, though the new U.S. Cyber Command is expected to be established by October 2010. Without complete and clearly articulated guidance on cyber command and control responsibilities that is well- communicated and practiced with key stakeholders, DOD may have difficulty in building unity of effort for carrying out cyber operations. DOD has recognized the need for improvements in its command and control organization for cyberspace operations and commissioned associated studies by U.S. Joint Forces Command and the Institute for Defense Analyses. Both classified studies evaluated DOD’s command and control organization and recommended improvements in 2008. DOD has started to act on these recommendations, by initiating key organization changes, such as establishing the U.S. Cyber Command. However, until DOD updates its policies and guidance to clarify command and control relationships for cyber operations and clearly communicates those to all DOD entities, its efforts to conduct coordinated and timely actions to defend DOD’s critical networks and other cyber operations will be degraded. DOD has identified some cyberspace capability gaps. DOD also continues to study the extent of these gaps. However, it has not completed a comprehensive, departmentwide assessment of needed resources associated with the capability gaps and an implementation plan to address any gaps. According to the 2006 National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, military departments and certain agencies and commands should develop the capabilities necessary to conduct cyberspace operations, including consistently trained personnel, infrastructure, and organization structures. U.S. Strategic Command’s Operational Concept for Cyberspace reported in 2008 that national security vulnerabilities inherent in cyberspace make it imperative that the United States develop the requisite capabilities, policy, and tactics, techniques, and procedures for employing offensive, defensive, and supporting operations to ensure freedom of action in cyberspace. In addition, a study commissioned by the Joint Staff and conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses states that the key underlying drivers of effectiveness in cyberspace are developing and deploying the right tools and building and sustaining an adequate cyber force of trained and certified people. Institute for Defense Analyses officials stated that unless DOD has adequate resources for cyber operations, organizational changes within the cyber domain will not be effective. DOD commands have identified capability gaps that hinder their ability to marshal resources to operate in the cyberspace domain. U.S. Strategic Command and other combatant commands highlighted their cyber capability gaps in their Integrated Priority Lists for fiscal years 2011- 2015. U.S. Strategic Command, which is tasked with being the global synchronizer for cyber operations within DOD, identified in its Integrated Priority List for fiscal years 2011-2015 gaps and associated priorities in such areas as the need to be able to defend against known threats, detect or characterize evolving threats, and conduct exploitation and counter operations, as desired. U.S. Strategic Command listed cyber- related gaps as its highest priority, emphasizing the need for and importance of resources to increase cyber capabilities. U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Joint Forces Command have also reported cyber capability gaps involving lack of sufficient numbers of trained personnel to support their cyber operations and a need for additional cyber intelligence capabilities. U.S. Strategic Command has reported that the lack of cyber resources it identified has affected the command’s ability to respond to requests for cyber capabilities from other combatant commands, particularly for full- spectrum cyberspace operations. It remains to be seen what effect the newly proposed U.S. Cyber Command will have on this process, particularly with Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare and Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations being merged into one organization within the new U.S. Cyber Command. A need for more cyber planners and cyber-focused intelligence analysts was a common theme during our meetings with officials at the combatant commands. Officials at several of the geographic combatant commands stated that without the proper planners and cyber-focused intelligence analysts, they lacked situational awareness of their networks and the ability to both plan cyber operations for their respective commands and request applicable support from U.S. Strategic Command. For example, cyber planners play a key part in the developmental process of a computer network attack operation. U.S. Central Command officials stated that although most computer network attack operations are being conducted in its area of responsibility, it does not have a single full-time dedicated cyber planner to assist in the development of such operations. Because it lacks the appropriate trained personnel and dedicated career path, U.S. Central Command has redirected personnel with cyber expertise to act as temporary planners. This greatly affected the command’s ability to match resources to, and plan for, all cyber-related functions. For example, a cyber planner within U.S. Central Command was borrowed from another career field, worked as a planner for a time, and then was reassigned to help resolve information technology issues at a help desk. Without a sufficient number of cyber planners in-theater, combatant commands will continue to struggle with being able to plan cyber activities to assist in accomplishing the commander’s mission objectives, and communicating their need for assistance to U.S. Strategic Command. The lack of skilled and highly trained cyber personnel presents challenges for many DOD components, and the lack of sufficient personnel prevents DOD components from fulfilling essential computer network operation activities. DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System provides a framework from which DOD can assess and prioritize departmentwide cyber-related capability gaps, assign responsibility for addressing them, and develop an implementation plan for achieving and tracking results. This system is DOD’s primary means of identifying the capabilities required to support national strategies. It therefore helps the military services prepare long-term program plans to address critical joint capabilities. One of the key elements of this system is a capabilities- based assessment that defines a mission, identifies required capabilities, identifies gaps, assesses risk associated with those gaps, prioritizes gaps, assesses nonmateriel solutions, and recommends actions for the department to pursue. While the department’s review of cyberspace capability gaps and various studies on cyberspace operations are steps in the right direction, it remains unclear whether these gaps will be addressed, since DOD has not conducted the kind of comprehensive capabilities-based assessment outlined in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System or established an implementation plan to resolve any resulting gaps. For example, DOD conducted an assessment of computer network defense and computer network attack capability gaps in 2004 that highlighted the need for a broader effort to address gaps as part of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. However, this assessment was not finalized for action. DOD has since conducted individual cyber-related studies focused on the lack of trained cyber personnel and also brought attention to cyber-related capability gaps listed in the combatant commanders’ fiscal year 2011- 2015 Integrated Priority Lists. In February 2009, the Joint Staff directed the Force Support Functional Capabilities Board to address future cyberspace force manning and organization gaps and to develop a current baseline manpower posture across cyberspace operations and present a consolidated view of all documented DOD cyberspace manpower requirements. The Force Support Functional Capabilities Board put together a Cyberspace Study Team to engage the combatant commands, services, and agencies in their efforts. In addition to the cyberspace studies discussed above, and as part of DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council issued a memorandum in June 2009 (JROCM 113-09) that reviewed and endorsed 85 capability gaps across DOD from the combatant commands’ reported Integrated Priorities Lists—4 of which were cyber-related. Throughout the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process, functional capabilities boards provide oversight and assessment, as appropriate, to ensure system documents take into account joint capabilities and alternative approaches to solutions. In this case, the memorandum stated that Functional Capabilities Boards will track the recommendations related to the capability gaps. The Functional Capabilities Boards periodically report on the way ahead for recommended actions and report recommendations to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council for decision. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council’s approval and implementation in a Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum serves as the analytic underpinning for many future decisions related to capability gaps. However, capability gaps are considered “closed” based on the Joint Requirements Oversight Council’s decisions and the assumption that those decisions will be implemented. Failure to execute the Joint Requirements Oversight Council’s decision is not considered a capabilities gap assessment issue, although it may generate an input for the next capabilities gap assessment cycle. DOD has continued to make progress with respect to some of the individual capability gaps identified from the Integrated Priority Lists for fiscal year 2011-2015. Also the memorandum requested that U.S. Strategic Command lead the joint effort to create a concept of operations to inform future decisions but provided no specific time frame for these actions in the memorandum. Joint Staff officials we interviewed recognized that fully addressing the cyber capability gaps they have thus far identified may take years to complete. Some cyber capability gaps are relatively new, thus the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has deferred manpower studies to be completed first so that informed decisions can be made at a later time. For example, the Joint Staff officials also noted that some cyber-related resource requests involving computer network operations from U.S. Pacific Command could not be addressed immediately because of the lack of existing doctrine or policy on the appropriate authority to carry out this specific action. While the Joint Staff’s action to direct the Functional Capabilities Boards to track progress toward addressing capability gaps is a step in the right direction for developing a plan to address capability gaps, it remains unclear whether or when these gaps will be addressed. For example, as of December 2009, the Joint Staff listed all the cyber-related capability gaps noted by Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 148- 09 as closed; but for several of the gaps, the memorandum only cited the manpower study discussed above as rationale. Furthermore, the Joint Staff is also currently reviewing the most recent Integrated Priority List from the combatant commands for fiscal years 2012-2017, in which some previously-cited cyber capability gaps were repeated. Though DOD has previously begun efforts similar to a comprehensive capabilities-based assessment for cyberspace, it has not completed those efforts. The studies we discuss and ongoing efforts, such as the individual Functional Capabilities Board actions, provide much-needed information to DOD officials about where further action may be needed. But these efforts lack the scope of a complete capabilities-based assessment and do not include time frames or a funding strategy for addressing capability gaps. Further, in prior work, we found that best practices for strategic planning have shown that effective and efficient operations require detailed plans outlining major implementation tasks, defined metrics and timelines to measure progress, a comprehensive and realistic funding strategy, and communication of key information to decision makers. Absent such elements as a broad assessment of cyber-related capability gaps, time frames for assessing and addressing gaps, and a strategy for funding any required programs, combatant commands are compelled to report the same capability gaps they had in previous years without an assurance that they will be addressed; and the military services will be unable to fully plan for programs to address cyberspace requirements. As a result, cyber capability gaps across DOD will continue to hinder DOD’s ability to plan for and conduct effective cyber operations. DOD has been characterized as one of the best-prepared federal agencies to defend against cybersecurity threats, but keeping pace with the magnitude of cybersecurity threats DOD faces currently and will face in the future is a daunting prospect. DOD networks and our country’s critical infrastructure can be disrupted, compromised, or damaged by a relatively unsophisticated adversary and, as witnessed by the 2008 infections from removable media, this can potentially affect the conduct of military operations. The U.S. military is dominant in the land domain, unchallenged in the air, and has few near-peers in the maritime domain. However, the technical and economic barriers to entry into the cyber domain are much lower for adversaries and as a result place U.S. networks at great risk. DOD has taken many important steps to better organize its cyber efforts with the creation of the U.S. Cyber Command, but it is too early to tell whether this will provide the necessary leadership and guidance DOD requires to address cybersecurity threats. Based on public statements from DOD senior leadership, DOD understands the severity of the problem. DOD’s actions to reassess its organization for cyber-related operations, assess and update joint doctrine, assess command and control relationships, and study cyber-related capability gaps all take advantage of DOD’s considerable planning and operational experience. The next step to keep pace or stay ahead of the rapidly- changing environment reflected by the cyber domain is for DOD to further its efforts in each of these areas in a more comprehensive manner and as part of a cohesive policy. To strengthen DOD’s cyberspace doctrine and operations to better address cybersecurity threats, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:  direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and U.S. Strategic Command to establish a time frame for (1) deciding whether or not to proceed with a dedicated joint doctrine publication on cyberspace operations and for (2) updating the existing body of joint doctrine to include complete cyberspace-related definitions, and  direct the appropriate officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff, to clarify DOD guidance on command and control relationships between U.S. Strategic Command, the services, and the geographic combatant commands regarding cyberspace operations, and establish a time frame for issuing the clarified guidance. To ensure that DOD takes a more comprehensive approach to its cyberspace capability needs and that capability gaps are prioritized and addressed, we make two additional recommendations, that the Secretary of Defense direct the appropriate Office of the Secretary of Defense officials, in coordination with the secretaries of the military departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to  develop a comprehensive capabilities-based assessment of the departmentwide cyberspace-related mission and a time frame for its completion, and  develop an implementation plan and funding strategy for addressing any gaps resulting from the assessment that require new capability development or modifications to existing programs. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our 4 recommendations and discussed some of the steps it is taking and planning to take to address these recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report where appropriate. In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the U.S. Strategic Command to establish a time frame for deciding whether or not to proceed with a dedicated joint doctrine publication on cyberspace operations and for updating the existing body of joint doctrine to include complete cyberspace-related definitions, DOD agreed and stated that as part of implementing the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, an assessment of joint doctrine is under way and is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2011. Furthermore, DOD said that this process will also include related cyber lexicon and definitions. While our report was in final processing, DOD began to publish some of the doctrinal updates they had agreed needed to be made. Since the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations was published in 2006, we believe the new joint doctrine assessment represents progress that should help DOD address some of the existing gaps in joint doctrine with a time frame for completing the effort. We continue to believe that DOD’s overall assessment should include a decision on whether or not to proceed with a dedicated joint doctrine publication on cyberspace operations and a plan for updating the existing body of joint doctrine. DOD agreed with our recommendation that it clarify roles and responsibilities, including command and control relationships between the U.S. Strategic Command, the services, and the geographic combatant commands regarding cyberspace operations, and establish a time frame for issuing the clarified guidance. However, DOD stated it had already satisfied this recommendation by means of the June 23, 2009, memorandum establishing U.S. Cyber Command and the 2008 Unified Command Plan. According to DOD, both documents have promulgated clear guidance for command and control relationships. The Secretary of Defense memorandum establishing the U.S. Cyber Command does allude to the U.S. Cyber Command implementation plan, which does contain some information on command and control relationships, but does not provide the kind of clear guidance we describe as lacking in our report. The implementation plan further alludes to a U.S. Cyber Command Concept of Operations that will be published at a later date, which may provide further information on command and control guidance. While the 2008 Unified Command Plan discusses missions and responsibilities for U.S. Strategic Command in cyberspace operations, we believe this information is outdated, considering the memo directing the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command was issued in June 2009. Although it is early in the establishment process for the new U.S. Cyber Command, we continue to believe that DOD should take advantage of opportunities to develop and articulate clear command and control guidance that will provide a timely and cohesive approach to combating cyber threats throughout the chain of functional and geographic combatant commands, the services, and other DOD components in anticipation of the U.S. Cyber Command reaching full operating capability in October 2010. Vehicles for conveying this guidance might include the U.S. Cyber Command Concept of Operations, additional implementation plans, and revisions to the Unified Command Plan. DOD agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the appropriate Office of the Secretary of Defense officials, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a comprehensive capabilities-based assessment of the departmentwide cyberspace-related mission and a time frame for its completion. DOD indicated that cyber defense would be one focus area for risk management decisions as part of the upcoming budget cycle but provided no further information on how it planned to implement the steps in the recommendation. We recognize that fully addressing DOD’s cyber capability gaps will take years; however, we maintain the importance of establishing an assessment of these gaps and establishing a time frame to address them. DOD agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the appropriate Office of the Secretary of Defense officials, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop an implementation plan and funding strategy for addressing any gaps resulting from the assessment that require new capability development or modifications to existing programs. DOD stated that its budget risk management decisions, as well as the development of a National Defense Strategy for Cyberspace Operations would help the department identify and mitigate gaps but provided no further information on how they planned to implement the steps identified in the recommendation. We continue to believe it is important to develop an implementation plan and funding strategy for addressing these gaps in order to avoid combatant commands reporting the same capability gaps they had in previous years without an assurance that they will be addressed and that the military services will be unable to fully plan for programs to address cyberspace requirements. Without this effort, cyber capability gaps across DOD will continue to hinder its ability to plan for and conduct effective cyber operations. DOD’s comments are reproduced in full in appendix V. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Davi M. D’Agostino at (202) 512-5431 or Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244. We can also be reached by e-mail at dagostinod@gao.gov or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. To address our objectives, we focused our work on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) organizations that are involved in computer network operations, including computer network defense, exploitation, and computer network attack. We reviewed a variety of unclassified and classified documents to understand the organization and challenges the department faces in addressing cyberspace operations.  Sans Institute  Carnegie Mellon CERT CC We reviewed policies, guidance, and directives involving organizations related to computer network operations. Also, we reviewed documents involving the reorganization and development of new organizations within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force, and Navy to address cyber threats. To determine the extent to which DOD has developed an overarching joint doctrine that addresses cyberspace operations across DOD, we reviewed and analyzed current joint doctrine publications, such as Joint Publication 13-3, Information Operations, and other publications involving computer network operations for key definitions. Also, we reviewed U.S. Joint Forces Command’s analysis of cyber-related joint doctrine and U.S. Strategic Command’s current efforts to develop joint doctrine. In addition, we interviewed Joint Staff, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Joint Forces Command officials regarding current department efforts to develop joint doctrine on cyberspace. We compared existing joint doctrine efforts and plans with the guidance in DOD’s joint doctrine development process. To assess the extent to which DOD has assigned command and control responsibilities, we reviewed the 2008 Unified Command Plan, Standing Rules of Engagement and other DOD plans, policies and guidance to determine authorities for functional and geographic combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies. Additionally, we reviewed and identified lessons learned from combatant commands following DOD’s response to malware infections during Operation Buckshot Yankee in 2008. In addition, we interviewed service and command officials directly involved with Operation Buckshot Yankee to discuss their challenges. We also reviewed recommendations on command and control from the Institute for Defense Analyses and U.S. Joint Forces Command and met with officials from these organizations to discuss analysis involving this area. To determine capability gaps involving computer network operations we analyzed the fiscal year 2010 and 2011-2015 Integrated Priority Lists to identify cyberspace capability gaps for the functional and geographic combatant commands. Also we analyzed the National Intelligence Estimate regarding The Global Cyber Threat to the U.S. Information Infrastructure, the Central Intelligence Agency’s Cyber Threat Intelligence Highlights, and prior GAO reports on cybersecurity to determine the depth of cyber threats facing the nation and DOD. We also interviewed various functional and geographic combatant command officials to identify capability gaps and resources needed to address these gaps. In addition, we met with Joint Staff officials to discuss their efforts to address capability gaps listed in the Integrated Priority Lists, including developing studies on manpower shortages and providing funding to computer network defense efforts. We reviewed DOD cyber-related capability assessments and compared them with DOD criteria for capabilities-based assessments as part of DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through April 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and worked with DOD from November 2010 to July 2011 to prepare an unclassified version of this report for public release. Government auditing standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following are examples of Department of Defense (DOD) offices and organizations with cyber-related roles and responsibilities. Table 5 shows certain cyber-related roles and responsibilities for various offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Table 6 shows certain cyber-related roles and responsibilities for various Joint Staff offices. Table 7 shows certain cyber-related coordination forums. Table 8 shows certain cyber-related roles and responsibilities of U.S. Strategic Command. Table 9 shows certain cyber-related roles and responsibilities of Combatant Command Theater Network Centers and Theater and Global Network Operation Centers. Table 10 shows the cyber-related roles and responsibilities of services’ Network Operations Centers and Computer Emergency/Incident Response Teams Table 11 shows the military services’ current cyber organization in January 2009. Table 12 shows some of the cyber-related roles and responsibilities of the intelligence agencies. Table 13 shows certain cyber-related roles and responsibilities of defense criminal investigative–related organizations. The Secretary of Defense directed the office to lead a review of policy and strategy to develop a comprehensive approach to DOD cyberspace operations. As a result of this review and a separate review of DOD cyberspace policy conducted under the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations Implementation Plan, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy found that DOD required new and updated cyberspace policies to guide the integration of cyberspace, and that the existing policies were too focused on the individual pieces of cyberspace operations. Table 14 shows how the military services are supporting or plan to support the U.S. Cyber Command. The Department of Defense (DOD) defines computer network defense as actions taken to protect, monitor, analyze, detect, and respond to unauthorized activity within DOD information systems and computer networks. Computer network defense employs information assurance capabilities to respond to unauthorized activity within DOD information systems and computer networks in response to a computer network defense alert or threat information. Currently, DOD’s cyberspace defensive measures include Intrusion Detection Systems that alert network operators to the signatures of an incoming attack or can kill the network traffic. Strong firewall settings reduce the exposure to the outside world on the NIPR Network as well as block incoming traffic from origins known to launch attacks. Traffic, both inbound and outbound, in a symmetric network configuration, can be examined or prevented, causing most trivial attacks to be stopped at the NIPR Network borders. Several metrics are used to measure information assurance performance. These include documenting the correct certification and accreditation documentation and compliance with DOD directives, reporting this information as a part of the Federal Information Systems Management Act, vulnerability scanning, red and blue team testing, Defense Information Systems Agency evaluations performed on various networks, and other efforts. Below are several examples of policies, programs, and tools that DOD uses to protect its networks. DOD Directive O-8530.1, and its supporting document DOD Instruction O-8530.2, directed the heads of all DOD components to establish component-level computer network defense services to coordinate and direct all componentwide computer network defense and ensure certification and accreditation in accordance with established DOD requirements and procedures. Computer network defense service is provided or subscribed to by owners of DOD information systems or computer networks, or both, in order to maintain and provide computer network defense situational awareness, implement computer network defense protect measures, monitor and analyze in order to detect unauthorized activity, and implement computer network defense operational direction. DOD Directive O-8530.1 also required that all component information systems and computer networks be assigned to a certified computer network defense service provider. Computer network defense service providers are those organizations responsible for delivering protection, detection, and response services to its users. Computer network defense service providers are commonly a Computer Emergency or Incident Response Team and may be associated with a Network Operations and Security Center. The goal for the program is to improve the security posture of DOD information systems and networks by ensuring that a baseline set of services are provided by computer network defense service providers. Under the oversight of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration and U.S. Strategic Command, the Defense Information Systems Agency conducts a certification program of the computer network defense service providers to ensure they are providing that critical baseline set of services. The Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process was implemented by the DOD Chief Information Officer in DOD Instruction 8510.01 on November 28, 2007. According to DOD, the Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process is the standard DOD process for identifying, implementing, validating, certifying, and managing information assurance capabilities and services, expressed as information assurance controls, and authorizing the operation of DOD information systems, in accordance with Title III of the E-Government Act, the Federal Information Security Management Act, DODD 8500.1, DODI 8500.2, and other statutory and regulatory requirements. The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 requires agencies to develop and implement an information security program, evaluation processes, and annual reporting. The act requires mandated annual reports by federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget. The act also includes a requirement for independent annual evaluations of the agencies’ information security programs and practices by the agencies’ inspectors general or independent external auditors. Host-Based Security Systems are a suite of commercial-off-the-shelf software that provides a framework and point products to protect against cyber threats both at the network and host levels, and provide system baselining to support the Information Operations Condition process. The system includes, but is not limited to, host firewall, host intrusion detection, host intrusion prevention, system compliance profiling, rogue system detection, application blocking, and Information Operations Condition baselining. DOD expects to provide network administrators and security personnel with mechanisms to prevent, detect, track, report, and remediate malicious computer-related activities and incidents across all DOD networks and information systems. The deployment of Host-Based Security Systems was initially ordered by Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations in October 2007, with deployment on unclassified systems to be completed no later than June 2008. Deployment of Host- Based Security Systems to classified systems was to begin in January 2008. According to U.S. Strategic Command, as of February 2010, DOD NIPR and SIPR networks were still in the process of implementing Host- Based Security Systems, with 67 percent and 48 percent respectively implemented. The Information Assurance Vulnerability Management Program provides positive control of vulnerability notification, corresponding corrective action, and Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert status visibility for DOD network assets. It focuses on the status of DOD networks to mitigate or eliminate known vulnerabilities. Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations is responsible for monitoring relevant sources of information to discover security conditions that may require Information Assurance Vulnerability Management vulnerability notification and assess risk and potential operational effect associated with software vulnerabilities. Once a vulnerability is evaluated and warrants notification, Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations will publish an Information Assurance Vulnerability Management vulnerability notification and amplifying information as one of three products depending on risk level of the vulnerability: Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert (critical risk), Information Assurance Vulnerability Bulletin (medium risk), Technical Advisory (low risk). Response to Alerts is mandatory and combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies are required to implement directives, and report back to Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations on their Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert compliance. These inspections, formerly known as the Enhanced Compliance Validation visits, are conducted by the Defense Information Systems Agency at the direction of U.S. Strategic Command in order to provide an assessment of information assurance and compliance to DOD policies and configuration requirements of all combatant commands, military services, and DOD agencies. The Defense Information Systems Agency also uses these inspections to provide DOD component and local leadership with actionable recommendations for improving information assurance readiness. DOD officials considered these visits as risk assessments. Inspection teams provide penetration testing and security audits for client agencies, combatant commands, installations, and military services. The inspection teams use a holistic approach that evaluates more than computer hardware and software—such as personnel procedures and policies, and physical security of equipment and locations. According to Defense Information Systems Agency officials, the Defense Information Systems Agency and Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations scan DOD networks. Combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies are also responsible for scanning the local systems that they administer. The Defense Information Systems Agency scans systems prior to their connection to DOD networks and at regularly scheduled intervals thereafter. Additionally, Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations has directed all combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies to scan their networked devices on a regular basis. Joint Task Force–Global Network Operations has developed its NetOps Scorecard as a process for displaying NetOps compliance and readiness status for the entire DOD community. This quarterly review has been in effect for the military services since August 2007, and was expanded to cover all combatant commands, military services, and DOD agencies in February 2009. The Scorecard measures compliance to NetOps directives (such as communications tasking orders, Information Operations Conditions, and fragmentary orders), authority to operate, Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert compliance, and the status of inspections. U.S. European Command has developed its own Cyber Defense Playbook intended to standardize theater policy, tactics, and procedures related to computer network defense efforts and improve command and control relationships to ensure and maintain cyber/network readiness and coordinated responses to computer network defense events. The Playbook was developed by a working group from across the theater with participation from U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe, U.S. Air Force Europe, Special Operations Command Europe, U.S. Navy Europe, and the Defense Information Systems Agency. It incorporates information and best practices from the agencies listed above as well as from the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare and Joint Staff guidance. It includes baseline computer network defense triggers, reporting and response timelines, checklists, tactics, techniques, and procedures for computer network defense related events, and basic computer network defense reference materials. The Playbook also includes contingency options for personnel to use should their recommended computer network defense tools be unavailable. According to officials from the DOD Cyber Crime Center, the Defense Industrial Base Collaborative Information Sharing Environment is an Office of the Secretary of Defense–initiated effort to generate more transparency about and share network security information among DOD’s private sector contractors. The Defense Industrial Base Collaborative Information Sharing Environment is run by the DOD Cyber Crime Center, and 28 Defense Industrial Base partners have voluntarily agreed to share information through the program as of March 2009. The 28 Defense Industrial Base partners are all major contractors and are responsible for approximately 90 percent of the information across the Defense Industrial Base. The information shared in Defense Industrial Base Collaborative Information Sharing Environment is anonymous because the Defense Industrial Base partners are concerned about public disclosure. They feel that if their shareholders and competitors learn that a Defense Industrial Base partner’s networks have been attacked, it could affect earning and the ability to win contracts in the future. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is in the process of developing a National Cyber Range that will provide a test bed to produce qualitative and quantitative assessments of the security of various cyber technologies and scenarios. This effort is expected to provide a safe, instrumented environment for national cyber security research organizations to test the security of information systems. Several private, commercial, and academic institutions will develop the initial phase of the National Cyber Range. At the conclusion of the initial phase, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency will make decisions regarding future plans, which notionally could include a second phase with a critical design review, and a third phase to develop the full-scale National Cyber Range and start conducting tests. According to DOD officials, DOD mandates specific configuration settings for all prevalent technologies in the Global Information Grid through the use of Security Technical Implementation Guides and associated checklists. These Security Technical Implementation Guides are developed by the Defense Information Systems Agency in full collaboration with military services, agencies and selected combatant commands. According to DOD officials, the Security Technical Implementation Guides are updated periodically keeping pace with documented emerging threats and changes to technology. These Security Technical Implementation Guides are a basis for system administrators to securely maintain their systems and for certifiers and reviewers to evaluate those systems. In prior reports, we and various agency inspector general offices have made hundreds of recommendations to agencies for actions necessary to resolve prior significant control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. For example, we recommended that federal agencies correct specific information-security deficiencies related to user identification and authentication, authorization, boundary protections, cryptography, audit and monitoring, physical security, configuration management, segregation of duties, and continuity of operations planning. We have also recommended that agencies fully implement comprehensive, agencywide information-security programs by correcting weaknesses in risk assessments, information-security policies and procedures, security planning, security training, system tests and evaluations, and remedial actions. In the past, we have also reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) information-security weaknesses in various reports. For example, in 1991, we reported on foreign hackers penetrating DOD computer systems between April 1990 and May 1991, as a result of inadequate attention to computer security, such as password management and the lack of technical expertise on the part of some system administrators. In May 1996, we reported that unknown and unauthorized individuals were increasingly attacking and gaining access to highly sensitive unclassified information on DOD’s computer systems. We reported that external attacks on DOD computer systems were a serious and growing threat. According to DOD officials, attackers had stolen, modified, and destroyed both data and software. They had installed “back doors” that circumvented normal system protection and allowed attackers unauthorized future access. They had shut down and crashed entire systems and networks. In September 1996, we issued a report, based on detailed analyses and testing of general computer controls, that identified pervasive vulnerabilities in DOD information systems. We had found that authorized users could also exploit the same vulnerabilities that made external attacks possible to commit fraud or other improper or malicious acts. In fact, knowledgeable insiders with malicious intentions could pose a more serious threat than outsiders, since they could be more aware of system weaknesses and how to disguise inappropriate actions. Our report highlighted the lack of a comprehensive information security program and made numerous recommendations for corrective actions. In August 1999, we reported that DOD had made limited progress in correcting the general control weaknesses we reported in 1996. We also found that serious weaknesses in DOD information security continued to provide both hackers and hundreds of thousands of authorized users opportunities to modify, steal, inappropriately disclose, and destroy sensitive DOD data. As a result, numerous defense functions, including weapons and supercomputer research, logistics, finance, procurement, personnel management, military health, and payroll, have already been adversely affected by system attacks or fraud. In 2003, we reported that DOD faced many risks in its use of globally networked computer systems to perform operational missions—such as identifying and tracking enemy targets—and daily management functions, such as paying soldiers and managing supplies. Weaknesses in these systems, if present, could give hackers and other unauthorized users the opportunity to modify, steal, inappropriately disclose, and destroy sensitive military data. In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General has completed annual reviews under the Federal Information Security Management Act involving a wide range of information assurance weaknesses that persist throughout DOD systems and networks. These reports have compiled information assurance vulnerabilities based on reports from Army Audit Agency, Naval Audit Service, Air Force Audit Agency, and GAO since 1991. From August 1, 2008, to July 31, 2009, the most frequently cited weaknesses were in the following information assurance areas: security policies and procedures/management oversight; access controls; configuration management; and plans of action and milestones to identify, assess, prioritize, and monitor the progress of corrective efforts for security weaknesses found in programs and systems. According to the DOD Inspector General, persistent weaknesses in information-security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical information and information systems used to support operations, assets, and personnel. The report also noted that without effective management oversight, DOD cannot be assured that systems are accurately reported and maintained, information systems contain reliable data, and personnel are properly trained in security policies and procedures. ! No text of specified style in document. In addition to the contacts named above, Lorelei St. James, Joseph Kirschbaum, Nelsie Alcoser, Neil Feldman, David Holt, Jamilah Moon, Grace Coleman, Joanne Landesman, and Gregory Marchand made key contributions to this report.

Summary: According to the U.S. Strategic Command, the Department of Defense (DOD) is in the midst of a global cyberspace crisis as foreign nation states and other actors, such as hackers, criminals, terrorists, and activists exploit DOD and other U.S. government computer networks to further a variety of national, ideological, and personal objectives. This report identifies (1) how DOD is organized to address cybersecurity threats; and assesses the extent to which DOD has (2) developed joint doctrine that addresses cyberspace operations; (3) assigned command and control responsibilities; and (4) identified and taken actions to mitigate any key capability gaps involving cyberspace operations. It is an unclassified version of a previously issued classified report. GAO analyzed policies, doctrine, lessons learned, and studies from throughout DOD, commands, and the services involved with DOD's computer network operations and interviewed officials from a wide range of DOD organizations.. DOD's organization to address cybersecurity threats is decentralized and spread across various offices, commands, military services, and military agencies. DOD cybersecurity roles and responsibilities are vast and include developing joint policy and guidance and operational functions to protect and defend its computer networks. DOD is taking proactive measures to better address cybersecurity threats, such as developing new organizational structures, led by the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command, to facilitate the integration of cyberspace operations. However, it is too early to tell if these changes will help DOD better address cybersecurity threats. Several joint doctrine publications address aspects of cyberspace operations, but DOD officials acknowledge that the discussions are insufficient; and no single joint publication completely addresses cyberspace operations. While at least 16 DOD joint publications discuss cyberspace-related topics and 8 mention "cyberspace operations," none contained a sufficient discussion of cyberspace operations. DOD recognizes the need to develop and update cyber-related joint doctrine and is currently debating the merits of developing a single cyberspace operations joint doctrine publication in addition to updating all existing doctrine. However, there is no timetable for completing the decision-making process or for updates to existing doctrine. DOD has assigned authorities and responsibilities for implementing cyberspace operations among combatant commands, military services, and defense agencies; however, the supporting relationships necessary to achieve command and control of cyberspace operations remain unclear. In response to a major computer infection, U.S. Strategic Command identified confusion regarding command and control authorities and chains of command because the exploited network fell under the purview of both its own command and a geographic combatant command. Without complete and clearly articulated guidance on command and control responsibilities that is well communicated and practiced with key stakeholders, DOD will have difficulty in achieving command and control of its cyber forces globally and in building unity of effort for carrying out cyberspace operations. DOD has identified some cyberspace capability gaps, but it has not completed a comprehensive, departmentwide assessment of needed resources, capability gaps, and an implementation plan to address any gaps. For example, U.S. Strategic Command has identified that DOD's cyber workforce is undersized and unprepared to meet the current threat, which is projected to increase significantly over time. While the department's review of some cyberspace capability gaps on cyberspace operations is a step in the right direction, it remains unclear whether these gaps will be addressed since DOD has not conducted a more comprehensive departmentwide assessment of cyber-related capability gaps or established an implementation plan or funding strategy to resolve any gaps that may be identified. GAO recommends that DOD (1) establish a timeframe for deciding on whether to complete a separate joint cyberspace publication and for updating the existing body of joint publications, (2) clarify command and control relationships regarding cyberspace operations and establish a timeframe for issuing the clarified guidance, and (3) more fully assess cyber-specific capability gaps, and (4) develop a plan and funding strategy to address them. DOD agreed with the recommendations.