
Names, products, and services referenced within this document may be the trade names, trademarks, or service marks of their respective owners. References to commercial vendors and their products or services are provided strictly as a convenience to our users, and do not constitute or imply endorsement by DoD, DISA, the DISA Risk Management Executive (RME), or DISA RME Cybersecurity Standards Branch of any non-Federal entity, event, product, service, or enterprise.
Cloud computing technology and services provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with the opportunity to deploy an Enterprise Cloud Environment aligned with Federal Department-wide Information Technology (IT) strategies and efficiency initiatives. Cloud computing enables the Department to consolidate infrastructure, leverage commodity IT functions, and eliminate functional redundancies while improving continuity of operations. The overall success of these initiatives depends upon well executed security requirements, defined and understood by both DoD Components and industry. Consistent implementation and operation of these requirements assures mission execution, provides sensitive data protection, increases mission effectiveness, and ultimately results in the outcomes and operational efficiencies the DoD seeks.
The 15 December 2014 DoD CIO memo regarding Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services defines DoD Component responsibilities when acquiring commercial cloud services. The memo allows components to responsibly acquire cloud services minimally in accordance with the security requirements outlined in Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and this Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (CC SRG). Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) previously published the concepts for operating in the commercial cloud in the Cloud Security Model. Version 1 defined the overall framework and provided initial guidance for public data. Version 2.1 added information for Controlled Unclassified Information. The CC SRG documents cloud security requirements in a construct similar to other SRGs published by DISA for the DoD. This SRG incorporates, supersedes, and rescinds the previously published Cloud Security Model (CSM).
This CC SRG introduces terminology and concepts that are unique to cloud computing and DoD’s usage of the technology. While this section lists some of the key terms, please refer to Appendix B; Glossary for their definitions before, or as, reading this document to realize a full understanding of the content and requirements.
The following is a list of key terminology which is used throughout this document:
[1] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required) http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
This CC SRG outlines the security model by which DoD will leverage cloud computing along with the security controls and requirements necessary for using cloud-based solutions.
This CC SRG applies to DoD provided cloud services and those provided by a contractor on behalf of the Department.
The CC SRG serves several purposes:
The audience for this CC SRG includes:
[2] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required)
http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
This document is provided under the authority of DoD Instruction 8500.01 and DoD Instruction 8510.01.
DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8500.01, entitled Cybersecurity, directs Director DISA, under the authority, direction, and control of the DoD CIO to develop and maintain Control Correlation Identifiers (CCIs), Security Requirements Guides (SRGs), Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), and mobile code risk categories and usage guides that implement and are consistent with DoD cybersecurity policies, standards, architectures, security controls, and validation procedures, with the support of the National Security Agency Central Security Service (NSA/CSS), using input from stakeholders, and using automation whenever possible.
DoDI 8500.01 further directs DoD Component heads to ensure that all DoD IT under their purview comply with applicable STIGs, [NSA] security configuration guides, and SRGs with any exceptions documented and approved by the responsible AO.
DoDI 8510.01 implements NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-37, NIST SP 800-53, Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Instruction (CNSSI) 1253, and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) by establishing the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD IT, establishing associated cybersecurity policy, and assigning responsibilities for executing and maintaining the RMF.
DoDI 8510.01, para 2a states: “This instruction applies to: (2) All DoD IT that receive, process, store, display, or transmit DoD information. These technologies are broadly grouped as DoD IS, platform IT (PIT), IT services, and IT products. This includes IT supporting research, development, test and evaluation (T&E), and DoD-controlled IT operated by a contractor or other entity on behalf of the DoD.”
DoDI 8510.01, Encl 3, para 3b (page 13) defines internal and external IT Services (formerly "Outsourced IT-based Processes"). Cloud computing by its nature fits this definition which is as follows:
"3b. IT Services. IT services are outside the service user organization's authorization boundary, and the service user's organization has no direct control over the application or assessment of required security controls. DoD organizations that use IT services are typically not responsible for authorizing them (i.e., issue an authorization decision).
(1) Internal IT services are delivered by DoD ISs. DoD organizations that use internal IT services must ensure the categorization of the IS delivering the service is appropriate to the needs of the DoD IS using the service, and that written agreements describing the roles and responsibilities of both the providing and the receiving organization are in place.
(2) DoD organizations that use external IT services provided by a non-DoD federal government agency must ensure the categorization of the IS delivering the service is appropriate to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability needs of the information and mission, and that the IS delivering the service is operating under a current authorization from that agency. In accordance with Reference (h) [ed. DoDI 8500.01], interagency agreements or government statements of work for these external services must contain requirements for service level agreements (SLAs) that include the application of appropriate security controls.
(3) DoD organizations that use external IT services provided by a commercial or other non-federal government entity must ensure the security protections of the IS delivering the service is appropriate to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability needs of the DoD organization's information and mission. DoD organizations must perform categorization in accordance with Reference (e) [ed. CNSSI 1253] and tailor appropriately to determine the set of security controls to be included in requests for proposals. DoD organizations will assess the adequacy of security proposed by potential service providers, and accept the proposed approach, negotiate changes to the approach to meet DoD needs, or reject the offer. The accepted security approach must be documented in the resulting contract or order.
(4) DoD organizations contracting for external IT services in the form of commercial cloud computing services must comply with DoD cloud computing policy and procedural guidance as published."
This CC SRG, in support of DoDI 8510.01, Encl 3, para 3b, establishes the DoD security objectives to host DoD mission applications and DoD information in internal and external IT services in the form of CSP’s CSOs. The sensitivity of the DoD information may range from publicly releasable up to and including SECRET. Missions above SECRET must follow existing applicable DoD and Intelligence Community (IC) policies and are not covered by this CC SRG.
NOTE: The IC offers approved Cloud Services at classification levels above SECRET. Contact the DoD CIO Cloud team for additional information at: osd.cloudcomputing@mail.mil.
This CC SRG applies to all CSPs/CSOs hosting DoD systems/information/data/applications, regardless of who owns or operates the environments. Owners/operators can be DoD Components, Federal Government agencies, or commercial entities.
This CC SRG supports the responsibilities of DoD Component heads, per 44 USC 3534 (a) (1) (ii) (Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)), to provide protections for "information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency". CSPs not operated by the Mission Owner are essentially “a contractor of an agency” which operates an information system on “behalf of an agency". Mission Owners contracting with a CSP are outsourcing all or a portion of their information technology workloads to the CSP. This is the same as the use of “IT services” under DoDI 8510.01, Encl 3, para 3b.
This CC SRG also applies to all DoD mission owners using cloud services and all parties involved in the provisioning of cloud services to DoD mission owners. This includes integrators or brokers and CSPs serving as prime contractor as well as any supporting CSP or facilities provider (i.e., sub-contractor) that an integrator/broker/CSP might leverage or contract with to provide a complete service or set of services under a DoD contract. For example, if CSP A instantiates their SaaS offering in CSP B’s IaaS offering, which is located in CSP C’s data center, the CC SRG is applicable to all three CSP/CSO entities for the applicable requirements. Similarly, for a cloud services integrator/broker which uses or resells one or more CSPs/CSOs to full contract requirements, the CC SRG is applicable to all cloud services. While the CSP’s overall service offering may be inheriting controls and compliance from a third party, the prime CSP, the CSP with a DoD contract for service, is ultimately responsible for complete compliance. This applicability statement and associated requirements are consistent with DoD and Federal acquisition requirements and clauses which state that DoD contractors, in this case integrators/brokers/CSPs must include all security requirements incumbent upon them in all subcontracts.
The authorization process for commercial and non-DoD CSPs is based on FISMA and NIST RMF processes through the use of FedRAMP, supplemented with DoD considerations as outlined in Section 4, Risk Assessment Of Cloud Service Offerings of this document. These requirements and considerations are a subset of the requirements in the DoD RMF. The authorization process for DoD enterprise service programs providing cloud capabilities or service offerings (e.g. milCloud, Defense Enterprise Email) is based on the DoD RMF requirements and processes which are similar to the FISMA and NIST RMF processes. Both processes utilize similar baselines of the NIST SP 800-53 security controls as the basis of the assessment, providing a common framework under which DoD can determine the level of risk.
This SRG establishes the DoD baseline security requirements for DoD Mission Owners when contracting for and using non-DoD Software as a Service (SaaS) offering, and when implementing their systems and applications on DoD or non-DoD Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS) offerings. Since IaaS and PaaS involve CSP customers building a system or application on top of these service offerings, this release of this CC SRG considers IaaS and PaaS as being similar and treats them in the same manner, unless stated otherwise. SaaS is addressed to the extent of the other service models, with specific application requirements being identified in other application-related SRGs and STIGs.
NOTE: Recognizing that PaaS CSOs can range from very close to IaaS where the mission owner is only provided with a few unsecured programming environments and an OS that the Mission Owner must secure to very close to SaaS where the CSO is a mostly complete application that mission owner can only customize its interface, PaaS will be better addressed in a future release of this CC SRG.
NOTE: While this CC SRG applies to all DoD use cases of cloud computing, one of the primary focus points of this SRG is to facilitate the migration of DoD systems and applications hosted on physical infrastructure (virtualized or not) owned by DoD Components and connected to DoD Defense Information System Network (DISN) services (i.e., Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) to DoD or non-DoD Cloud Services (as defined by NIST. See Section 2.1, Cloud Computing, Cloud Service, and Cloud Deployment Models for this definition). This SRG does not address all DoD systems and applications unless they are migrating to or leveraging DoD or non-DoD Cloud Services nor does it address approved DoD or non-DoD systems and applications used by DoD that are already approved for direct access via the Internet (not traversing the DISN) unless they are migrating to commercial cloud services directly accessed via the Internet. While this SRG may be used to assess/approve such cloud services and the applications that use them, it is not intended to change the approved network access or connectivity methods they use.
DoDI 8550.01, “DoD Internet Services and Internet-Based Capabilities,” September 11, 2012,[3] addresses the “Use of Internet-based capabilities (IbC) to collect, disseminate, store, and otherwise process unclassified DoD information.” The intent of this policy is to permit the use of various established public services on the Internet by DoD Components and users. One of the primary use cases is for the dissemination of publicly released information on these services (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) as part of a Public Affairs communications campaign. Secondary use cases include the publication of Blogs. The DoD Information Impact Level of all information covered by the DoDI 8550.01 is Impact Level 2.
While the services addressed by the DoDI 8550.01 may be considered cloud services, the typical funding model is that such services are free to use and are widely used by the general public under that model. Additionally these services are not managed by DoD or managed by the provider for DoD, therefore DoD RMF requirements do not apply and such services do not require an ATO for DoD to use them. Conversely, the CC SRG is applicable to all cloud services that require a DoD ATO under DoD policy. This includes all IaaS and PaaS CSOs on which a DoD system is built (by or for DoD).
Security Requirements Guides (SRGs) are collections of security requirements applicable to a given technology family, product category, or an organization in general. SRGs provide non-product specific requirements to mitigate sources of security vulnerabilities commonly encountered across IT systems and applications.
While the SRGs define the high level requirements for various technology families and organizations, the Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) are the detailed guidelines for specific products. In other words, STIGs provide product-specific information for validating, attaining, and continuously maintaining compliance with requirements defined in the SRG for that product’s technology area.
A single technology related SRG or STIG is not all inclusive for a given system. Compliance with all SRGs/STIGs applicable to the system is required. This typically results in a given system being subject to multiple SRGs and/or STIGs.
Newly published SRGs and STIGs generally consist of a technology/product overview document and one or more eXtensible Markup Language (XML) (.xml) files in Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format (XCCDF) containing the security requirements. Security requirements are presented in the form of Control Correlation Identifiers (CCIs) and include product specific configuration and validation procedures. Requirements in this CC SRG are not being published in an XCCDF XML format at this time.
The security requirements contained within SRGs and STIGs, in general, are applicable to all DoD-administered systems, all systems connected to DoD networks, and all systems operated and/or administrated on behalf of the DoD. This requirement remains in force for all Mission Owners building systems in a cloud service. CSP systems must comply with configuration guidance consistent with the NIST SP 800-53 control CM-6 by utilizing STIGs/SRGs or a configuration guide deemed equivalent by DoD.
Interested parties can obtain the applicable SRGs and STIGs from the Information Assurance Support Environment (IASE) website. The unclassified website is http://iase.disa.mil and the classified website is http://iase.disa.smil.mil.
NOTE: Some content requires a DoD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate for access. The IASE web site does NOT currently accept External Certificate Authority (ECA) certificates for entry into the PKI-protected area. Industry partners needing PKI restricted content may request it through their DoD sponsor.
DISA Risk Management Executive, Cybersecurity Standards Branch develops, revises, updates, and publishes SRG and STIG documents on a quarterly maintenance release schedule as needed. These publications reflect new or changed policies, requirements, threats, or mitigations; reorganized content; corrected errors; and/or, to provide additional clarity. The fiscal year based release schedule can be found at http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/fso-schedule.aspx.
Major updates to an SRG or STIG result in a version change rather than an incremental release. New SRGs and STIGs and major updates will be released as soon as they are approved and ready for publication at any time during the year.
Comments, proposed revisions, and questions are accepted at any time via email at disa.stig_spt@mail.mil.
DISA Risk Management Executive, Cybersecurity Standards Branch coordinates all change requests with relevant DoD organizations before inclusion and subsequent publication in a maintenance release or major update.
This SRG is organized into six major sections with supporting appendices. Sections 1-4 address general information including the processes for authorizing a particular CSP’s cloud offering. Remaining sections outline specific security requirements to be addressed in authorizing and operating cloud capabilities. In addition to specifics on SRG roles and responsibilities and required control parameter values, the appendices provide the references and definitions used throughout the document.
Section 1, Introduction: Provides general information on the purpose and use of this document.
Section 2, Background: Contains a primer on several terms and supporting concepts used throughout the document.
Section 3, Information Security Objectives / Impact Levels: Explains the concept of “Information Impact Levels” based on the type of data being hosted in the cloud and outlines security objective considerations in the areas of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
Section 4, Risk Assessment of Cloud Service Offerings: Provides an overview of the RMF processes used for granting a DoD PA and explains how a PA can be leveraged by a Mission Owner and its AO in support of an ATO decision.
Section 5, Security Requirements: Details the requirements associated with enabling CSP capabilities.
Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response: Outlines the requirements for defending information systems operating in the cloud along with the Command and Control (C2) processes necessary to defend and operate DoD mission systems.
This section outlines several concepts, terms, and supporting processes, providing a primer for the remainder of this document.
NIST SP 800-145[4] defines cloud computing as having five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models. This SRG adheres to these NIST definitions to characterize and standardize the discussion of Cloud Computing. Cloud Computing is defined as follows:
“Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.”
The Essential Characteristics are:
“On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service provider.
Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and workstations).
Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, and network bandwidth.
Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be elastically provisioned and released, in some cases automatically, to scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time.
Measured service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.”
The NIST defined cloud service models include Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and are defined as follows:
“Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through either a thin client interface, such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email), or a program interface. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.
Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages, libraries, services, and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly configuration settings for the application-hosting environment.
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, and deployed applications; and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls). ”
NIST defines cloud deployment models as follows.
“Private cloud. The cloud infrastructure is provisioned for exclusive use by a single organization comprising multiple consumers (e.g., business units). It may be owned, managed, and operated by the organization, a third party, or some combination of them, and it may exist on or off premises.
Community cloud. The cloud infrastructure is provisioned for exclusive use by a specific community of consumers from organizations that have shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be owned, managed, and operated by one or more of the organizations in the community, a third party, or some combination of them, and it may exist on or off premises.
Public cloud. The cloud infrastructure is provisioned for open use by the general public. It may be owned, managed, and operated by a business, academic, or government organization, or some combination of them. It exists on the premises of the cloud provider.
Hybrid cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more distinct cloud infrastructures (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities, but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load balancing between clouds). ”
This SRG uses private and community to mean the following: “DoD private/community cloud” refers to a cloud service that is built for the exclusive use of DoD users or tenants. “Federal Government Community cloud” is one that includes both DoD and other Federal Government tenants. For example, a cloud used exclusively by Army and Air Force tenants would be considered DoD private/community, while one utilized by DISA and the Department of State would be a Federal Government community cloud.
While vendors may market and name their offerings as they wish, DISA will categorize them into one of the three NIST cloud service models when listing them in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog. Vendors are encouraged to market their services using the NIST cloud service model terminology. Service offerings that provide data storage without also providing computing services will be considered to be a subset of IaaS. Furthermore any other service models proposed by the vendor (such as Data as a Service (DaaS)) will have to be aligned to one the three standard service delivery models and meet the appropriate controls. As used in this SRG the terms cloud computing and cloud services refer to a service offering from a provider organization to one or more organizational customers or tenant organizations. These terms do not refer to classic forms of IT services delivery where dedicated hardware (whether it is virtualized or not) is employed or assembled by organizations for their own use. A service offering from a provider organization to a customer must be part of the construct.
A Cloud Service Provider (CSP) is an entity that offers one or more cloud services in one or more deployment models. A CSP might leverage or outsource services of other organizations and other CSPs (e.g., placing certain servers or equipment in third party facilities such as data centers, carrier hotels / collocation facilities, and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)). CSPs offering SaaS may leverage one or more third party CSO’s (i.e., for IaaS or PaaS) to build out a capability or offering.
A Cloud Service Offering (CSO) is the actual IaaS/PaaS/SaaS solution available from a CSP. This distinction is important since a CSP may provide several different CSOs.
DoDI 8510.01 is the implementing policy for the DoD RMF, establishing associated cybersecurity policy, and assigning responsibilities for executing and maintaining the RMF. This DoD policy is consistent with NIST SP 800-37, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework, which defines RMF for the Federal Government. CNSSI 1253 and NIST SP 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations are incorporated into this DoD policy, which outline the controls and control baselines used in the assessment process. Of critical importance to this SRG, DoDI 8510.01 "provides procedural guidance for the reciprocal acceptance of authorization decisions and artifacts within DoD, and between DoD and other federal agencies, for the authorization and connection of information systems (ISs)."
The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program[5], or FedRAMP, is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services used by the Federal Government. The use of FedRAMP is mandated for all Federal Agencies by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as their systems and applications are migrated to the commercial cloud under the Federal Government’s Cloud-First initiatives. The December 2011 OMB FedRAMP policy memo[6] requires Federal departments and agencies to utilize FedRAMP approved CSPs and share Agency ATOs with the FedRAMP Secure Repository.
FedRAMP uses a “do once, use many times” framework that intends to reduce cost, time, and staff required for security assessments and process monitoring reports. The FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board (JAB) is the primary governance and decision-making body for the FedRAMP program. JAB-approved standards and processes result in the award and maintenance of a PA to host Federal Government missions.
DoD leverages FedRAMP JAB PAs and non-DoD U.S. Government Federal Agency ATO packages residing in the FedRAMP Secure Repository, including all supporting documentation when assessing a CSO for a DoD PA. However, DoD will only accept non-DoD Agency ATOs where the CSP/CSO was assessed by a FedRAMP accredited Third Party Assessor Organization (3PAO).
NOTE: The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation[7] (A2LA) accredits FedRAMP 3PAOs with the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) providing final approval.
[5] FedRAMP: https://www.fedramp.gov/
[6] December 2011 OMB Policy Memo: https://www.fedramp.gov/files/2015/03/fedrampmemo.pdf
[7] American Association for Laboratory Accreditation: https://www.a2la.org/
FedRAMP+ is the concept of leveraging the work done as part of the FedRAMP assessment, and adding specific security controls and requirements necessary to meet and assure DoD’s critical mission requirements. A CSP’s CSO can be assessed in accordance with the criteria outlined in this SRG, with the results used as the basis for awarding a DoD provisional authorization.
A DoD Provisional Authorization (PA) is an acknowledgement of risk based on an evaluation of the CSP’s CSO and the potential for risk introduced to DoD networks. The DoD PA process follows the same “do once, use many times” framework as FedRAMP does. DoD PAs are granted at all information impact levels. A PA provides a foundation that AOs responsible for mission applications must leverage in determining the overall risk to the missions/applications that are executed as part of a CSO.
Since all CSOs offered by a CSP may not have been submitted for assessment, a DoD PA is granted to the CSP for a CSO, not the CSP itself. Furthermore, if a CSP’s CSO leverages another CSP’s CSO (e.g., CSP A instantiates their SaaS offering in CSP B’s IaaS offering) then the DoD PA for CSP A’s CSO includes inherited compliance of CSP B. In this case, CSP A will be contractually responsible for CSP B and must have accountability for controls in their sub-contracts. It is therefore highly recommended that CSPs offering service to DoD only utilize other CSOs that have a DoD PA. In the event a leveraged CSP/CSO does not have a PA, it will be assessed as part of the prime CSO. Such subtended assessments will not automatically grant the leveraged CSP/CSO an independent PA. CSPs must disclose subcontracted CSOs used in the CSOs offered to DoD when assessed for a DoD PA.
NOTE: DoD PAs are not granted to physical facilities by themselves (e.g., a data center) that support cloud infrastructure even if it might be considered a CSO if the facility supports multiple CSPs or multiple tenants’ equipment. These are assessed for the physical and environmental controls as part of the CSP’s CSO by the 3PAO for unclassified facilities. Classified processing facilities are addressed later in this CC SRG.
A DoD PA is revocable in the event a CSP/CSO loses its FedRAMP PA or if the CSP does not maintain compliance with its security responsibilities identified in this CC SRG, associated requirements found in other referenced documents, or contract requirements. Additionally, a CSP’s CSO with a DoD PA which leverages another CSP’s CSO with a DoD PA may lose their PA if the leveraged CSO loses its PA. CSPs acting as prime contractor must maintain the PA for their CSO and require all sub contracted CSPs to maintain the PA for their CSOs for the term of the contract. This flow-down is also applicable to cloud services integrators and brokers acting as prime contractors. If a prime or subcontracted CSO losing a PA and refuses to correct or cannot correct the reason(s) for it, such a condition may constitute a breach of contract. While revoking a PA is an extreme measure, DoD will work with the CSP to resolve the issues leading to revocation. Consistent with the December 2014 DoD CIO Memo,[8] the DISA AO is responsible for approving and revoking DoD PAs.
CSOs possessing a DoD PA are listed in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog[9]. DoD Component services may also implement approved CSP/CSO listings for their agency’s use.
[8]Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing
[9] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required)
http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
Cloud security information impact levels are defined by the combination of: 1) the sensitivity or confidentiality level of information (e.g., public, private, classified, etc.) to be stored and processed in the CSP environment; and 2) the potential impact of an event that results in the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of that information. DoD Mission Owners must categorize mission information systems in accordance with DoDI 8510.01 and CNSSI 1253 then identify the Cloud Information Impact level that most closely aligns with the defined categorization and information sensitivity. The Cloud Information Impact Levels are further defined in Section 3.2, Information Impact Levels.
Information Impact Levels consider the potential impact should the confidentiality or the integrity of the information be compromised.
According to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems,[10] confidentiality is “preserving authorized restrictions on information access and disclosure, including means for protecting personal privacy and proprietary information…” [44 U.S.C., Sec. 3542][11]. A loss of confidentiality is the unauthorized disclosure of information.
FIPS Publication 199 defines integrity as “Guarding against improper information modification or destruction, and includes ensuring information non-repudiation and authenticity…” [44 U.S.C., Sec. 3542]. A loss of integrity is the unauthorized modification or destruction of information. It is important to note that the unauthorized destruction of information will result in the loss of availability of that information.
FIPS-199 defined three levels to designate the impact of a loss of confidentiality or a loss of integrity (refer to Table 1). The security control baseline for all Impact Levels is based on moderate confidentiality and moderate integrity. If a Mission Owner has high potential impacts, specific requirements must be included in the contract/SLA to address/mitigate this risk or deploy to DoD facilities assessed using CNSSI 1253 high baselines through the DoD RMF. In the future DISA will consider incorporating a FedRAMP High Baseline into this SRG after one becomes available.
Table 1 - Potential Impact Definitions for Security Objectives (FIPS-199)
|
Potential Impact |
||
Security Objective |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
Confidentiality |
The unauthorized disclosure of information could be expected to have a limited adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
The unauthorized disclosure of information could be expected to have a serious adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
The unauthorized disclosure of information could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
Integrity |
The unauthorized modification or destruction of information could be expected to have a limited adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
The unauthorized modification or destruction of information could be expected to have a serious adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
The unauthorized modification or destruction of information could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. |
While the FedRAMP baseline addresses availability, the DoD Cloud baseline objectives do not additionally address the impact of availability; it is expected that the Mission Owner will assess the CSO’s stated availability rating(s) during CSP selection. Any specific or additional availability requirements must be included in the contract or a service level agreement with the CSO. Mission Owners must ensure the language is specific and inclusive for their required availability. For example, if the requirement is “CSP maintenance affecting system availability must be coordinated 4 weeks in advance and shall not exceed 4 hours per month,” then the contract / SLA should detail the requirement. Recommended contract / SLA availability controls are provided under the FedRAMP+ Controls/Enhancements in Section 5.1.6, Security Controls/Enhancements to be optionally addressed in the Contract/SLA.
CSOs will be evaluated as part of the assessment process for availability. The assessed level of availability will be listed in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog. This evaluation does not prevent a CSO from receiving a PA or being included in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog; it is only used to facilitate the matching of a DoD Mission Owner to one or more appropriate cloud services meeting their needs.
The previously published (and now superseded) Cloud Security Model[12] defined 6 information Impact Levels. In order to simplify the selection process, the number of levels was reduced from 6 to 4. This was accomplished by integrating levels 1 (public information) and 3 (low impact CUI) into levels 2 and 4, respectively. The numeric designators for the Impact Levels have not been changed in order to remain consistent with previous versions of the Cloud Security Model, leaving Impact Levels 2, 4, 5, and 6. Note that a higher level can process data from a lower level.
Additionally, the categorization for the information being stored, processed, or transmitted in the cloud for all levels has been changed to moderate confidentiality and moderate integrity as defined by CNSSI 1253. This modification for Impact Levels 5 and 6 from high confidentiality and high integrity is intended to better align with the categorization of most DoD customer systems that will be deployed to commercial CSP facilities.
Mission owners with systems and information categorized at high confidentiality or integrity impact levels must deploy to facilities assessed using CNSSI 1253 high baselines through the DoD RMF (typically a DoD facility) or contract for the added security from a commercial CSP. DISA is considering how to incorporate the FedRAMP High Baseline into this SRG.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the current information impact levels coupled with some of the distinguishing requirements and characteristics.
NOTE: See Section 5.2.1, Jurisdiction/Location Requirements for the explanation of “US / US outlying areas”
NOTE: ADP-1 and ADP-2 Personnel Requirements apply to both impact levels 4 and 5. See 5.6.2, .1,.2,.3
NOTE: Level 4/5 off-premises CSO connectivity will be via a BCAP on any DISN network (e.g., DREN) it serves.
Figure 1 – Impact Level Comparison
The following subsections describe the impact levels, to include those used previously, and the type of information to be stored or hosted in CSOs by Mission Owners.
Level 1 is no longer used and has been merged with Level 2.
Level 2 includes all data cleared for public release (i.e., , as well as some low confidentiality unclassified information NOT designated as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or critical military/contingency operations mission data, but the information requires some minimal level of access control (e.g., user ID and password) . This level accommodates Non-CUI information categorizations based on CNSSI-1253 up to low confidentiality and moderate integrity (L-M-x).
Commercial Level 2 CSP/CSO customers include whomever the CSP chooses to market the CSO to, which may include government customers, commercial customers, and the general public. Access to the CSO is via the Internet.
Level 3 is no longer used and has been merged with Level 4.
Level 4 accommodates CUI and/or other mission critical data to include that used in direct support of military or contingency operations. CUI is information the Federal Government creates or possesses that a law, regulation, or Government-wide policy requires, or specifically permits, an agency to handle by means of safeguarding or dissemination controls. CUI requires protection from unauthorized disclosure as established by Executive Order (EO) 13556, Controlled Unclassified Information (November 2010)[13], Part 2002 of 32 CFR[14], the CUI Registry [15]and DoDM 5200.01, Vol 4[16], which is currently being updated. CUI does not include classified information, or information a non-executive branch entity possesses and maintains in its own systems that did not come from an executive branch agency or entity acting for an agency. Designating information as CUI or critical mission data to be protected at Level 4 is the responsibility of the owning organization. Determination of the appropriate impact level for a specific mission with CUI and mission data will be the responsibility of the mission AO. Some types of CUI may not be eligible to be hosted on Impact Level 4 and 5 CSOs without a specific qualifier in the DoD PA. (e.g., for Privacy.) This level accommodates CUI information categorizations based on CNSSI-1253 up to moderate confidentiality and moderate integrity (M-M-x)
CUI contains a number of categories[17], including, but not limited to the following:
NOTE: ITAR data may not be placed on shared infrastructure managed by non-US-Persons or alongside other organizations who do not have a license to export as defined in 22 CFR 120.17[20] and 22 CFR 120.123[21].
Level 4 CSOs may support a US Government Community or a DoD only community (i.e., the CSO is DoD Private).
Commercial Level 4 CSP/CSO customers include all US government customers (Federal, State, Local, and Tribal) and commercial customers which support them. In some cases a Level 4 PA may be granted to CSOs that support other commercial entities, but not the general public.
Commercial Level 4 CSO customers include the following:
Level 4 customer CSO connectivity:
See section 5.10.1, Cloud Access Point (CAP) for information on DoD NIPRNet to CSO boundaries.
[13] EO 13556: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/04/executive-order-13556-controlled-unclassified-information
[14] Part 2002 of 32 CFR: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1998-title32-vol6/CFR-1998-title32-vol6-part2002
[15] CUI Registry: https://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-list.html
[16] DoDM 5200.01, Vol 4: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol4.pdf
[17] CUI Categories: http://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-list.html
[18] Department of Commerce EAR: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulations-ear
[19] Department of State ITAR: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html
[20] 22 CFR 120.17: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title22-vol1/pdf/CFR-2004-title22-vol1-sec120-17.pdf
[21] 22 CFR 120.-130 International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Part 123 - Licenses for the Export of Defense Articles, https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html
[22] NIST SP 800-22, Protecting PII: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-122/sp800-122.pdf
Level 5 accommodates CUI that may require a higher level of protection than that afforded by Level 4 as deemed necessary by the information owner, public law, or other government regulation. The determination if CUI fits this category is up to the AO responsible for categorizing the information and choosing the Cloud Impact Level.
Level 5 also supports unclassified National Security Systems (NSSs) due to the inclusion of NSS specific requirements in the FedRAMP+ C/CEs. As such, NSS must be implemented at Level 5. Some types of CUI may not be eligible to be hosted on Impact Level 4 and 5 CSOs without a specific qualifier in the DoD PA. (e.g., for Privacy.) This level accommodates NSS and CUI information categorizations based on CNSSI-1253 up to moderate confidentiality and moderate integrity (M-M-x).
Level 5 CSOs may support a Federal Government Community or a DoD only community (i.e., the CSO is DoD Private).
Commercial Level 5 CSP/CSO customers include all Federal Government customers (Federal Agencies only) which includes DoD Components and certain DoD contractors operating a DoD system for the benefit of the DoD.
Commercial Level 5 CSO customers include the following:
Level 5 customer CSO connectivity:
See section 5.10.1, Cloud Access Point (CAP) for information on DoD NIPRNet to CSO boundaries.
Level 6 accommodates information that has been determined: “(i) pursuant to EO 12958, Classified National Security Information (April 17, 1995) as amended by EO 13292[27], or any predecessor Order, to be classified national security information; or (ii) pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (P.L. 83-703)[28] to be Restricted Data (RD).” At this time, only information classified as SECRET or below, in accordance with the applicable EOs, is permitted to be hosted at this level. This level accommodates classified information categorizations up to moderate confidentiality and moderate integrity (M-M-x).
Level 6 CSOs may support a Federal Government Community or a DoD only community (i.e., the CSO is DoD Private). Due to the requirement of the entire CSO infrastructure be dedicated and separate from other CSP/CSO infrastructure Level 6 CSOs may only be provided by CSPs under contract to the DoD or a Federal Agency. In this sense the CSO is not considered “commercial”.
Level 6 CSO customers include the following:
Access to the CSO is via one or more private SIPRNet connections.
[27] EO 12958 as amended by EO 13292: http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html
[28] AEA 1954 as amended: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1327/ML13274A489.pdf#page=23
The shift to cloud computing necessitates adjustments to the DoD Risk Management processes, which typically address physical on-premises systems and applications, to accommodate the use of commercial CSOs. The goal is to address the security requirements and controls, relative to the criticality of DoD information in the cloud, in a cost effective and efficient manner, while still assuring the security of DoD’s core missions and networks in accordance with the DoD RMF. To support the relationship of missions to cloud capabilities, DoD has defined information Impact Levels (discussed in Section 3.2, Information Impact Levels) that broadly align to the criticality and sensitivity of data, and missions that would operate in a cloud environment. The DoD PA risk assessment process is focused on evaluating the requirements for the impact level(s) which a CSP’s CSO is capable of supporting. When choosing a CSP’s CSO, the mission owner must pick a CSO that fits their operational needs and that possesses a DoD PA at the information impact level corresponding to the categorization of the information to be processed or stored in the CSO. The PA and supporting documentation must then be leveraged by the Mission Owner’s Authorization Official in granting the required ATO for the mission system operating within the cloud.
NOTE: For the purpose of the CC SRG, the use of the term “Assessment and Authorization (A&A)” refers to the collection of RMF processes which includes “Security Control Assessment, Risk Assessment (informed by Security Control Assessment), Ongoing Assessment (continuous monitoring), and System Authorization.
The 15 December 2014 DoD CIO memo regarding Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services, states “components may host Unclassified DoD information that has been publicly released on FedRAMP approved cloud services.” The memo also states “FedRAMP will serve as the minimum security baseline for all DoD cloud services.”
Impact Level 2: Using the definitions outlined in Section 3.2, Impact Level 2 information may be hosted in a CSP that is government assessed as FedRAMP compliant at the moderate level. The two acceptable government assessments include:
DoD will not perform additional NIST 800-53 RMF control assessments at Level 2 before awarding a DoD PA and listing in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog[29].
Impact Level 4/5: RMF assessments for Impact Levels 4 and above are based on a combination of the security controls in the FedRAMP Moderate or High baselines and the DoD specific controls/requirements outlined in Section 5.1.2, DoD FedRAMP+ Security Controls/Enhancements and other requirements throughout this SRG. Where possible, DoD leverages documentation and artifacts from previous FedRAMP-JAB or non-DoD Agency authorizations in the FedRAMP Secure Repository and additional CSP proprietary artifacts provided by the CSP. FedRAMP+ requirements will be assessed by a FedRAMP accredited/approved 3PAO. An overall determination of risk is prepared by the DISA Cloud Security Control Assessor (SCA) organization to support a DoD PA decision. The DISA AO (formerly the DISA DAA) approves DoD PAs.
There are three paths that can be followed in assessing a CSP for a Level 4/5 DoD PA and subsequent listing in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog[30] available to DoD personnel. These are:
NOTE: This is the DoD preferred path to a DoD PA because the DoD SCA and the DoD CIO have already been involved in the assessments and authorization activities.
NOTE: Mission Owners, their AOs, and/or the DISA SCA need to carefully assess Agency ATOs as the non-DoD agency may have accepted risks that are not appropriate for DoD to accept.
When a FedRAMP PA or 3PAO assessed non-DoD Agency ATO does not exist, a DoD Component assessment of a CSP’s CSO may only be performed under two circumstances. These are:
The DoD organization with a need for that CSP’s CSO to be authorized will be required to support resourcing for the full assessment, in coordination with the DISA cloud security assessment team. This assessment of the FedRAMP, FedRAMP+ security controls, and other SRG requirements determines whether to grant a DoD PA and the appropriate impact levels.
If a CSP receives a DoD assessed PA and that service offering may be leveraged by other Federal Agencies, the CSP’s assessment package will be shared with and be available through the FedRAMP secure repository as well as the DoD Cloud Services Catalog. If the service offering will only be used by DoD customers the CSP’s assessment package will only be available through the DoD Cloud Service Catalog, since private clouds are ineligible for inclusion in the FedRAMP catalog.
While DoD CSP IaaS/PaaS/SaaS CSOs will be assessed for a full ATO under the DoD RMF to support their approval for connection to the DISN, DoD CSP IaaS/PaaS CSOs will also be assessed for a PA IAW the requirements for commercial CSPs in this SRG. The award of a PA to DoD CSP IaaS/PaaS CSOs enable the Mission Owners AOs to leverage the PA in the same manner as a PA for a commercial CSP toward granting an ATO for the systems and applications built on the CSO. For assessment information for DoD SaaS CSOs see Section 4.2, Assessment of DoD Cloud Services.
** “Other approved DoD SCA organizations” include those DoD Component level organizations that routinely perform Security Control Assessment activities in support of the Component’s AO. Examples are DISA’s Risk Management Executive (RME) Certification and Assessment Division RE5, Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and Air Force Space Command AFSPC.
CSOs may (should) be assessed for both FedRAMP and DoD requirements simultaneously by the same 3PAO. This permits CSPs to avoid redundancies in assessments when they seek to have a CSO included in both the FedRAMP and DoD Cloud Catalog.
Any change of ownership involving a CSP, whether the primary CSP or an underlying CSP on which a CSO was built, will be reviewed by the DISA AO to assess the impacts and risks associated with the continuation of the DoD PA. Furthermore, DoD CIO, the DISA AO, and Mission Owners must be notified of any potential change of CSP ownership six months before the change occurs to allow for the PA review and for Mission Owners to off-board from the CSP and retrieve their information/data if they desire. Mission Owners must address CSP ownership in their SLAs/Contracts. The major concern for DoD is a sale to a non-US organization.
A CSO with a DoD PA does not eliminate the requirement for a given application using the CSO to have an ATO (or IATT) prior to commencing operations as addressed in Section 4.3.3, Mission Risk.
NOTICE: DoD Cloud SCA organizations must be experienced in assessing NIST SP 800-53 C/CE. To standardize the quality of assessments across Cloud SCA organizations and the quality of DoD PAs for use by all DoD Components and Mission Owners, DoD SCA organizations should become accredited by American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)[31] and approved by FedRAMP as a 3PAO[32]. Alternately all assessments leveraged for a DoD PA should be done by a FedRAMP approved 3PAO. Furthermore, since DoD PAs are based on the RMF, CSP CSOs assessed under the outdated DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) using DoDI 8500.2 IA controls do not qualify for a DoD PA as this would break the standardization of the basis for the PA and thereby its quality.
Impact Level 6: Assessment and Authorization of off-premises DoD contractor facilities and information systems that process, store, transmit classified information (i.e., Non-DoD commercial CSPs and their Level 6 CSOs) must be performed in conjunction with the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) (as defined in Executive Order 12829[33]) and the Industrial Security Regulation (ISR) (DoD 5220.22-R)[34] in accordance with 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 4.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry[35] and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) section 52.204-2 - Security Requirements[36]. NISP policies are the purview of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)) Industrial Security division and, for DoD, the Defense Security Service (DSS). DoDI 5220.22[37] assigns DoD responsibilities for administration of the NISP IAW E.O. 10865 and 12829 to ensure classified information disclosed to industry is properly safeguarded. NISP responsibilities for DoD components are found in the DoD 5220.22-R and DoDI 5220.22; whereas, commercial CSPs with Level 6 offerings must adhere to the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) [38]. Together the ISR, NISPOM, and Office of the Designated Approving Authority (ODAA) Process Manual[39] provide guidance.
NOTE: It is the intent of the DoD CIO that all CSPs and CSOs are assessed against the same set of requirements and Cybersecurity control baselines as defined in the DoDI 8510.01- DoD RMF, and CNSSI 1253- Security Categorization and Control Selection for National Security Systems and the CC SRG. Requirements and processes supporting the authorization of off-premise Commercial CSPs and their CSOs for Impact Level 6 will be coordinated with OUSD(I) and DSS as NISP policies and procedures are updated. Updated guidance and requirements for off-premises CSPs and their CSOs for a DoD Level 6 provisional authorization may appear in a future release of the CC SRG.
[29] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required)
http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
[30] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required)
http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
[32] FedRAMP 3PAO approval: https://www.fedramp.gov/participate/3paos/
[33] EO 12829, NISP: http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12829.html
[34] DoD 5220.22-R: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022r.pdf
[35] 48 CFR Subpart 4.4:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title48-vol1/CFR-2011-title48-vol1-part4-subpart4-4
[36] FAR 52.204-2:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title48-vol2/pdf/CFR-2002-title48-vol2-sec52-204-1.pdf
[37] DoDI 5220.22 NISP: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022p.pdf
[38] DoD 5220.22-M, NISPOM: http://www.dss.mil/documents/odaa/nispom2006-5220.pdf
[39] (ODAA) Process Manual: http://www.dss.mil/documents/odaa/ODAA%20Process%20Manual%20Version%203.2.pdf
DoD operated CSOs (e.g., milCloud IaaS/PaaS) are subject to the same requirements found in this SRG and the same security controls as commercial CSOs. However, DoD CSP/CSO programs and services must also follow DoD Risk Management procedures in accordance with DoDI 8510.01, which is based on the full sets of controls and control enhancements listed in CNSSI 1253 commensurate with the service’s information categorization. This means the DoD CSO must be assessed against the aggregate baseline made up of the appropriate FedRAMP baseline (minimally Moderate) and the appropriate CNSSI 1253 baselines (as tailored). DoD CSOs require a full ATO which may be used in lieu of a PA or to generate a PA that can be leveraged by Mission Owner’s and their AOs.
DoD enterprise service programs that might be considered cloud services under the SaaS model (e.g., Defense Enterprise Email (DEE), Defense Collaboration Service (DCS), DoD Enterprise Portal Service (DEPS)), are also subject to the DoDI 8510.01 requirements and CNSSI 1253 baselines. Such programs are DoD assessed as noted above and not subject to being assessed through the FedRAMP program and do not share DoD ATOs with the FedRAMP secure repository.
DoD is transitioning to the DoD RMF from the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP). DIACAP is based on a set of DoD defined security controls, not the NIST SP 800-53 security control catalog. Cloud services initiated and authorized under the DIACAP will be assessed and authorized using the RMF in accordance with DoD transition guidance as defined in DoDI 8510.01 or supplemental DoD guidance.
Impact Level 6: Assessment and Authorization of On-Premises Level 6 CSOs (i.e., DoD or DoD Contractor managed CSOs in a DoD data center) will be performed by DoD Component SCAs in the same manner as any other SIPRNet enclave, service, or application in accordance with DoD established policies and processes IAW DoD RMF for DoD classified facilities, applications, connection approval, and clearances for DoD and DoD contractor personnel. In conjunction with this A&A the CSO may receive a DoD PA if the CSO will be offered to DoD Components other than the authorizing component and the CSO meets the standards defined in this CC SRG for all CSOs. In the event the on-premises CSO is operated/managed by a commercial CSP or other DoD contractor, the CSP/contractor will be required to have the appropriate facilities clearance and cleared personnel as is the case with any DoD contractor that handles classified information. The details of clearing contractors is well known and beyond the scope of the CC SRG.
To receive a DoD PA, DoD On-Premises Impact Level 6 CSOs will be minimally assessed IAW the FedRAMP Moderate or High Baseline, the Level 6 FedRAMP+ C/CE and the CNSSI 1253 Appendix F, Attachment 5 Classified Information Overlay C/CEs. Such CSOs may need to meet additional CNSSI 1253 C/CE in the baselines associated with the categorization of the information to be processed/stored in the CSO.
NOTE: See Section 5.6.2.2, CSP Personnel Requirements – PS-3: Background Investigations under the Level 6 topic for additional requirements related to on-premises contractor- managed CSOs WRT organizational facilities clearances and cleared personnel.
Risk management must consider both the CSO and the supported mission (i.e., the Mission Owner’s system or application). Each CSO must be granted a DoD PA in order to host DoD mission systems. The PA and supporting documentation will then be used by the Mission Owner’s risk management officials as a basis of reciprocity for the controls provided by the CSP, recognizing the controls will vary based on the service model (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) and could also vary based on requirements such as privacy or classification controls. Additionally, there are controls that are “shared controls” where both the CSO and the Mission Owner need to address a requirement. The responsible AO leverages the PA information, supplemented with an assessment of the risks within the Mission Owner’s responsibility, in granting an authorization to operate.
Understanding the distinction between what’s provided and addressed with the CSO versus what’s addressed by the Mission Owner is critical to implementing the DoD cloud security requirements as defined in this SRG.
In Cloud Computing, there are two primary Authorization Boundaries. These are generally determined by the division of control between CSP and Mission Owner. (See Figure 2 – Notional Division of Security Inheritance and Risk) and are generally defined as follows:
NOTE: Some PaaS services may not employ virtualization and the platform application offered by the service may be built from the ground up. This does not match the NIST definitions for cloud services.
NOTE: Some SaaS services may not employ virtualization and the application offered by the service may be built from the ground up. This does not match the NIST definitions for cloud services.
All service types: data in transit encryption methods used by the Mission Owner, any additional layers of access control implemented by the Mission Owner for access to the service for users and management, data at rest encryption implemented or managed by the customer, and any other DoD requirements that must be met by the CSP’s customer.
The DoD PA provides a provisional or partial risk acceptance determination for the CSO against the appropriate DoD security requirements. The DoD PA assessment process assesses and highlights CSO risk based on its supported impact level. At level 4 and above, it’s important to recognize that the DoD PA evaluation process also assesses the risk to DoD of permitting CSPs to connect to DoD networks.
Mission refers to the information system and functions for which a DoD entity acquires or uses a CSO. This may be the direct use of a SaaS CSO in performing an IT-enabled mission, or the instantiation of an IT system or application on an IaaS/PaaS CSO.
Any DoD or Non-DoD CSO used by Mission Owners must have been issued a DoD PA by DISA. Overall mission risk will continue to be assessed and authorized by the Mission Owner’s AO through the issuance of an ATO. The Mission Owner’s system/application/cloud use case must be issued an ATO by their Component's AO or other component authorized subordinate AO directly responsible for risk acceptance for the Mission Owner’s system/application/cloud use case. This is applicable at all information impact levels. This mission system ATO requirement extends to DoD CSP IaaS/PaaS CSOs where its ATO only permits its connection to the DISN since such an ATO cannot address full mission system/application risk when built on the CSO.
The requirement that a Mission Owner must only utilize CSOs that have a DoD PA extends to CSOs provided by a third party integration contractor or reseller of CSP CSOs. Any CSO being integrated into a solution for use by DoD or resold to a DoD entity must have a DoD PA.
Mission Owners categorize mission systems and/or applications in accordance with (IAW) DoDI 8510.01 defined processes. Mission owners then select CSOs from the DoD Cloud Service Catalog based on their security posture and the risk tolerance of the Mission Owner and their AO. While CSOs will have been assessed and provisionally authorized for use, the Mission Owner must proceed IAW the RMF to obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO) from their assigned AO.
The Mission Owner inherits compliance from the CSO for the security controls (or portions thereof) that the CSP meets and maintains. A Mission Owner’s system or application built on an IaaS or PaaS offering will be subject to meeting many of the same security controls within the system/application. Mission Owners contracting for SaaS offerings inherit the bulk of compliance with the security controls from the CSO. Inheritance will be different between CSPs operating within a given service model and thus must be evaluated separately. It should also be noted that the number of controls increases with higher impact levels and additional overlay controls (e.g. privacy). While Figure 2 depicts the division of management and ergo responsibility shared between the CSP and Mission Owner, it also illustrates the concept of inheritance.
Figure 2 – Notional Division of Security Inheritance and Risk [40]
The benefit of starting with a provisionally authorized CSO is that much of the security controls assessment work is already accomplished. Mission Owners and their AOs must still review the FedRAMP and DoD PA artifacts to understand the risks that the mission will inherit when using the selected CSO for the mission system/application. Mission owners may need to implement, or request that the CSP implement, compensating controls for any risk deemed unacceptable prior to obtaining an ATO. Additional compensating controls must be reflected in the Mission Owner’s SLA/contract with the CSP.
FedRAMP provides a transition strategy[41]for migrating CSP assessments from the FedRAMP v1 baselines based on NIST SP 800-53 rev3 to the FedRAMP v2 baselines based on NIST SP 800-53 rev4. This strategy went into effect on June 6, 2014. The key points are as follows:
NOTE: In accordance with the original transition plan, FedRAMP updated its transition plan on 9 Sept, 2015[42] to state:
“FedRAMP requires all CSPs to transition to the FedRAMP Revision 4 requirements by the end of the 2015 calendar year. As of January 1, 2016, the FedRAMP PMO will not accept Revision 3 system documentation as FedRAMP compliant.”
The requirements in this SRG become effective immediately upon final publication. However, the DoD migration plan for CSP assessments will mirror the FedRAMP plan as follows:
A DoD PA issued for a CSP using the CSM v2.1 and based on FedRAMP v1 remains in effect for the duration of the DoD PA (unless revoked), so long as compliance is achieved within the timelines described above. DoD mission owner’s systems leveraging a CSO may experience a period of time where risks based on FedRAMP v2 or new FedRAMP+ security controls have not yet been assessed. Mission owners and their AOs must review the controls to determine if the risk is acceptable until such time the CSP is required to comply or include the required compliance in the SLA/contract.
NOTE: CSPs wishing to transition sooner than later may do so at any time.
NOTICE: the use of the term FedRAMP v2 in the CC SRG refers to the FedRAMP baselines that were updated to NIST SP 800-53 rev4 from rev 3. This is not to be confused with the pending revision of FedRAMP designated as FedRAMP 2.0.
[41] FedRAMP transition strategy: www.fedramp.gov/files/2015/03/FedRAMP-Revision-4-Transition-Guide-v1.0-1.docx
https://www.fedramp.gov/files/2015/01/FedRAMP-Rev-4-Transition-Additional-Guidance.docx
[42] FedRAMP transition strategy 9/2015: https://www.fedramp.gov/files/2015/01/FedRAMP-Rev-4-Transition-Guide-v3-0.pdf
The requirements in CC SRG updates, whether they are a major version update or minor release update, become effective immediately upon final publication. However:
A DoD PA issued for a CSP using the previous CC SRG and based on FedRAMP v2 remains in effect for the duration of the DoD PA (unless revoked), so long as compliance is achieved with the timelines described above. Due to the transition period, DoD mission systems leveraging a CSO may experience a period of time where risks based on the current CC SRG security controls have not yet been assessed. Mission owners and their AOs must review the controls to determine if the risk is acceptable until such time the CSP is required to comply or include the required compliance in the SLA/contract.
NOTE: CSPs wishing to transition sooner than later may do so at any time.
This section provides information relative to PAs and ATOs in relation to contract awards. The following points, in no way, alter any contract clauses currently defined in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) or may be defined in the future, but is intended to provide additional clarity primarily regarding on-premises CSOs.
This topic must be addressed from two viewpoints. These are:
Off-Premises Commercial Service: IAW DFARS SUBPART 239.76—CLOUD COMPUTING,[43] 239.7602-1, a CSP must have a DoD PA at the appropriate Information Impact Level (IIL) before contract award. In essence this means the CSP/CSO must typically have a DoD PA before responding to a DoD cloud services RFP.
This extends to integrators and resellers of CSP CSOs responding to RFPs. Any CSO being integrated into a solution for use by DoD or resold to a DoD entity must have a DoD PA at the appropriate IIL.
DFARS 239.7602-1 provides 2 exceptions:
Additionally in the case of a Mission Owner leveraging a commercial off-premises CSO and its PA, the Mission Owner’s AO provides the ATO for their usage of the CSO to meet DoD RMF policy. This is also covered in the DoD CIO’s cloud memo.
On-Premises (physically or virtually): While the general DFARS rule applies to on-premises CSOs in that it is beneficial to DoD that the commercial instantiation of the CSP’s CSO has been assessed and awarded a DoD PA, proving the commercial service and infrastructure is capable of hosting DoD information and systems at the appropriate IIL, this PA is not directly useable for a separate on-premises instantiation of the CSO.
An on-premises CSO is DoD private which will be connected to a DISN service (i.e., NIPRNet or SIPRNet) as described elsewhere in the CC SRG. As such, the CSO must have a DoD Interim Authority to Test (IATT), conditional ATO, or PA to connect to the network for testing and a DoD ATO with or without conditions before going into production IAW normal DoD policy. A previous DoD PA for the off-premises commercial instantiation will only inform the assessments for the on-premises IATT and ATO. Certain portions of the previous PA assessment will have to be re-assessed due to the new infrastructure and different location(s), while some C/CE compliance will be inherited from the DoD and specific facility where the CSO infrastructure is located rather than the commercial facility. In a virtually on-premises scenario, the instantiation might inherit some C/CE compliance from the DoD PA for the commercial service and the commercial datacenters where it is hosted, providing the private instantiation is hosted in the same datacenter(s) as were reviewed for the PA. See Section 5.2.1.1, DoD Off-Premises Vs On-Premises Vs Virtually On-Premises for additional information.
As noted above, DFARS clause 239.7602-1.(b)(2)(ii), provides for an exception to the general rule that a CSP/CSO must have a DoD PA before award. It states that a contract may be awarded for a private, on-premises CSO that will be provided from U.S. Government facilities. It further states that the CSO must obtain a PA prior to operational use. On-premises DoD systems to include CSOs require an ATO before operational use. This ATO may be used in lieu of a PA or to generate a PA to be leveraged by Mission Owner’s and their AOs.
In accordance with industry norms, a Managed IT Service is one where the customer dictates the technology and the operational procedures while for a Cloud Service the provider (i.e., CSP) dictates the technology and the operational procedures. A physically or virtually on-premises DoD private CSO operated by a contractor, whether that contractor is the original CSP or other organization, in reality can be a Managed Service rather than a Cloud Service in the usual sense. This can happen when DoD contracts for a “copy” or “version” of a CSP’s commercial cloud service to be built on DoD premises (virtually or physically) and operated/managed as a private CSO. Whether it is a managed service vs cloud service depends on how many of the requirements for the service, its infrastructure, and management DoD specifies or dictates.
DoD private Managed Services are subject to normal DoD security requirements and RMF policy rather than DoD policy addressing commercial cloud services. That being said the applicable security requirements for a Managed Cloud Service will include requirements in this CC SRG and standard DoD RMF security requirements.
This section of the CC SRG defines the security requirements for DoD’s use of cloud computing. It covers several areas as follows:
NOTICE: All CSP and CSO requirements in this CC SRG apply to all CSPs and CSOs offered to or contracted by the DoD. DoD recognizes that CSOs may be offered by a CSP or an Integrator as the prime contractor on a DoD contract. DoD also recognizes that prime contractors may subcontract for multiple CSOs to meet contract capabilities requirements and may subcontract systems maintenance. Therefore all requirements in this CC SRG apply to all CSOs provided by prime contractors and their subcontractors to include systems maintenance contractors who may have access to CSP customer information or who may have the capability of affecting the security of the CSO. This flow down to subcontractors is also covered in cloud and contractor associated DFARS clauses.
DoDI 8500.01 requires all DoD Information Systems to be categorized in accordance with CNSSI 1253 and implement a corresponding set of security controls and control enhancements (C/CEs) that are published in NIST SP 800-53, regardless of whether they are National Security Systems (NSS) or non-NSS.
The CNSSI 1253 baselines are tailored from the NIST SP 800-53 recommended baselines, as are the FedRAMP baselines. These baselines are a starting point for securing all DoD systems, which can be tailored further to address specific systems and situations.
See NIST SP 800-59, Guideline for Identifying an Information System as a National Security System,[44] for a definition of NSS and further information.
The FedRAMP Low, Moderate, and High baselines are a tailored set of C/CEs based on the Low, Moderate, and High baselines recommended in NIST SP 800-53 catalog of security controls.
The 15 December 2014 DoD CIO memo regarding Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services states “FedRAMP will serve as the minimum security baseline for all DoD cloud services.” This SRG uses the FedRAMP Moderate baseline at all information impact levels and considers the High Baseline at some.
Level 2: The 2014 DoD CIO memo further states “components may host Unclassified DoD information that has been publicly released on FedRAMP approved cloud services”. Using the definitions defined in Section 3.2, Impact Level 2 information may be hosted in a CSP that minimally holds a FedRAMP Moderate PA and a DoD Level 2 PA; subject to compliance with the personnel security requirements outlined in Section 5.6.2, CSP Personnel Requirements and acceptance by the Mission Owner and the responsible AO. Only FedRAMP Moderate baseline controls will be assessed for DoD PAs for impact level 2. This in no way alleviates the CSP from meeting other security and integration requirements for CSP’s/CSOs as required by the Mission Owner while hosting DoD IT missions or the Mission Owner from securing their systems/web sites/applications in Level 2 CSOs.
Level 4: The FedRAMP Moderate baseline, supplemented with DoD FedRAMP+ C/CEs and other requirements in this SRG, are used to assess CSPs toward awarding a DoD PA at information impact level 4.
An alternate path to a DoD Level 4 PA is available due to coordination of the FedRAMP High baseline and DoD Level 4 FedRAMP+ C/CE. A FedRAMP High PA will be accepted for a DoD Level 4 PA without additional C/CE assessment, however, assessment of non C/CE based requirements in this SRG is required.
Levels 5/6: The FedRAMP Moderate or High baseline, supplemented with DoD FedRAMP+ C/CEs and requirements in this SRG, are used to assess CSPs toward awarding a DoD PA at information impact levels 5 and 6.
No matter what C/CE baseline is used as the basis for a FedRAMP PA, additional considerations and/or requirements will need to be assessed and approved before a DoD PA can be awarded at Levels 4/5/6. These considerations and/or requirements can be found throughout this SRG, while a summary can be found in section 5.1.7, Additional Considerations and/or Requirements for L4/5 DoD PA Award.
DoD FedRAMP+ refers to a tailored baseline of security C/CEs which has been developed for each DoD information impact level, except for level 2. These baselines incorporate, but are not limited to, the FedRAMP Moderate or High baselines. The FedRAMP+ C/CEs include NIST 800-53 security controls and enhancements not included in the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. FedRAMP+ also includes tailored values and selections for most FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CEs which require definition. The FedRAMP+ C/CEs were selected primarily because they address issues such as the Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) and/or Insider Threat, and because the DoD, unlike the rest of the Federal Government, must categorize its systems in accordance with CNSSI 1253, use its baselines, and then tailor as needed.
The CNSSI 1253 baseline used in support of DoD PAs is based on Moderate Confidentiality and Moderate Integrity. It does not include a baseline for Availability (categorization designated as M-M-x). Availability is addressed in the FedRAMP baseline and may also be addressed by the Mission Owner in the contract/SLA. The resulting M-M-x baseline was compared to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline to derive a tailored set of FedRAMP+ security controls/enhancements for each level. This comparison indicated that the FedRAMP Moderate Baseline includes approximately thirty two (32) C/CEs that are also contained in the CNSSI 1253 M-M-x baseline, but not in the NIST 800-53 Moderate baseline incorporated in both. The comparison also indicated that eighty-eight (88) of the C/CEs in the CNSSI 1253 M-M-x baseline are not in the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. These 88 were analyzed for their security benefit in the CSP environment and projected cost if the CSP were required to implement the C/CE. Approximately half were selected for the DoD cloud baselines for assessing CSPs. The number of control enhancements selected varies by impact level.
More recently, with the development of the FedRAMP High baseline, a portion of the DoD Level 4 FedRAMP+ C/CE were accepted for inclusion into the FedRAMP High baseline along with several value adjustments.
Table 2 provides a listing of the FedRAMP+ C/CEs applicable to each information impact level, which includes only three additional base controls. The rest are control enhancements. This table does not include controls added by the Classified Information or Privacy overlays. More information on the assessment of the C/CE in these overlays is provided in the sections following this one.
NOTE: This table does not include the FedRAMP Moderate or High baseline C/CEs, tables of which can be obtained from the FedRAMP website on the Documents page[45].
Table 2 - DoD FedRAMP+ Security Controls/Enhancements
SP 800-53r4 Cont./Enh. ID |
FedRAMP+ for FedRAMP Moderate Baseline |
FedRAMP+ for FedRAMP High Baseline |
||||
Level 4 |
Level 5 |
Level 6 |
Level 4 |
Level 5 |
Level 6 |
|
AC-06 (07) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AC-06 (08) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AC-17 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AC-18 (03) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AC-23 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AT-03 (02) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AT-03 (04) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AU-04 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AU-06 (04) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AU-06 (10) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
AU-12 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
CA-03 (01) |
|
X |
n/a* |
|
X |
n/a* |
CM-03 (04) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
CM-03 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
CM-04 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
CM-05 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IA-02 (09) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IA-05 (13) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-04 (03) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-04 (04) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-04 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-04 (07) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-04 (08) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-05 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
IR-06 (02) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
MA-04 (03) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
MA-04 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
PE-03 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
PL-08 (01) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
PS-04 (01) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
PS-06 (03) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SA-04 (07) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SA-12 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SA-19 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SC-07 (10) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SC-07 (11) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SC-07 (14) |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
SC-08 (02) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SC-23 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SC-23 (03) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SC-23 (05) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SI-02 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SI-03 (10) |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SI-04 (12) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SI-04 (19) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SI-04 (20) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SI-04 (22) |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
SI-10 (03) |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Total |
Also see 5.1.5 |
Also see 5.1.4 5.1.5 |
Also see 5.1.4 5.1.4.1 |
|
|
|
* Most Level 5 FedRAMP+ C/CEs are also applicable at Level 6. The use of n/a in Level 6 for CA-03 (01) is because the CE addresses “Unclassified National Security System Connections” and is therefore not selectable or applicable for Classified NSS. |
||||||
NOTE: CSPs may offer equivalent controls or mitigations which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Both FedRAMP and the DoD have defined minimum requirements in security controls and enhancement parameters. However, in some circumstances, the specifics of the implementation are left to the CSP and assessed as to whether the implementation is appropriate for the CSO and government. For those controls required by FedRAMP and the DoD, the parameter values are defined in Appendix D - CSP Assessment Parameter Values for PA. Also see Section 5.1.5.2, Effects of the Privacy Overlay on CSPs and Mission Owners for additional parameter guidance.
Although the control baselines for all levels are based on those from CNSSI 1253, only impact Level 5 and 6 are designed to accommodate NSS categorized up to M-M-x. NSS-specific C/CEs have been included at these levels along with those required for the slightly higher impact of these systems at the moderate level (short of a full high baseline). Thus, unclassified NSS must be instantiated at level 5 if a CSO is used. This, however, does not preclude an unclassified non-NSS from operating at Level 5 if the mission/information owner requires the added security.
Impact Level 6 is for classified systems which by definition are NSS. As such and IAW the DoD RMF, on-premises CSOs are subject to the CNSSI 1253 Classified Information Overlay in addition to FedRAMP and FedRAMP+. This overlay is an attachment to Appendix F of the CNSSI 1253 entitled CNSSI 1253F, Attachment 5, Classified Information Overlay.[46] It is available from the CNSS Library on the Instructions page.
This overlay imposes 94 additional C/CEs which must be assessed for a CSP’s CSO Level 6 PA. For all CSOs, there may only be a portion of these C/CEs applicable to the CSP with the balance of the C/CEs being fulfilled by the Mission Owner. This division of responsibility will be addressed in a future release of this document or in a companion document.
The CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay is an attachment to Appendix F of the CNSSI 1253 entitled CNSSI 1253F, Attachment 6, Privacy Overlay.[47] It is available from the CNSS Library on the Instructions page.
The Privacy Overlay was developed in accordance with Federal privacy requirements found in laws, policies, and standards that apply to government agencies, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 [48]and HIPAA[49], leveraging experts and lawyers in both fields. Legal references are included as the basis for all control specifications in the Privacy Overlay, including whether to select or exclude C/CE as well as the provision of supplemental guidance and control extensions. It is supported by DoD and the IC as well as other Federal agencies that are part of the CNSS. The Privacy Overlay was written by CNSS to protect PII and PHI in NSS, however, many of the requirements the overlay specifications are based on apply to any Federal information system that contains PII or PHI, regardless of whether the system is an NSS or not. All Federal agencies including DoD must comply with public laws that apply to the Federal government’s collection, use and maintenance of PII, thus DoD invokes the CNSS Privacy Overlay since it is the best resource we know of.
This overlay addresses Low, Moderate, and High sensitivity PII and PHI. It invokes most of the 36 privacy specific C/CEs from NIST SP 800-53 rev4, Appendix J, Privacy Control Catalog and invokes additional C/CEs from the Security Control Catalog. It also modifies many of the already selected C/CEs in the FedRAMP Moderate and FedRAMP+ baselines by providing supplemental guidance along with parameter value changes and control extensions. Quantities of additional C/CEs and guidance depend on both the PII sensitivity level and whether the PII meets the definition of PHI.
PII and PHI are categorized as CUI and as such must minimally be stored and processed in a Level 4 CSO. While the Privacy Overlay provides a Business Rolodex Exception (BRE) which exempts a subset of low sensitivity PII from the protection of the overlay, this does not remove this PII from the CUI category. Therefore at this time, no PII/PHI is permitted to be processed or stored in Level 2 CSOs.
To limit the affect the listing of Privacy Overlay C/CE and their Parameter Values on the size of the main portion of the CC SRG, this section provides pointers to tables in Appendix E of Privacy Overlay C/CE in the following categories:
NOTE: a comparative analysis of the Privacy Overlay C/CE to various other baselines is provided in Appendix F. This comparison provides statistics or counts of C/CE in various categories. This is provided for informational purposes only and may be removed from the final document or a future release of the CC SRG.
CSP CSOs that are intended to store and process PII and/or PHI (e.g., certain SaaS and PaaS offerings and potentially others) must be additionally assessed against the C/CEs that the Privacy Overlay adds to, or modifies in, the FedRAMP Moderate baseline as well as the FedRAMP+ C/CEs to receive a DoD PA for the CSO. This includes all SLA C/CEs and the Deselected C/CE from the CNSSI 1253 M-M-x baseline (used to select the FedRAMP+ C/CEs) that show a + symbol in the overlay which are to be added to the FedRAMP+ table at the appropriate level.
Successful Privacy Overlay assessments may result in a qualifier in the DoD PA that will reference the level of PII or PHI the CSO was successfully assessed for. E.g., CSO xyz is granted a Level 4 PA with the additional provisional authorization to handle up to Moderate sensitivity PII, or to handle some level of PII and PHI. Privacy Overlay C/CE that are clearly the responsibility of the CSP’s customer i.e., DoD Mission / Information Owner (e.g., the required Systems of Record Notice (SORN) per TR-2), will not be assessed and will not affect the award of a DoD PA or a PA qualifier.
It is also recognized that while IaaS and some PaaS CSOs have the potential to store and process PII and/or PHI, this is mostly at the customer’s discretion, and is not typically the intent of the CSP. As such, Privacy Overlay assessment will not be required for the IaaS and some PaaS CSO to receive a DoD PA.
Additionally, while a CSP’s IaaS and some PaaS CSOs will not normally be assessed against the Privacy Overlay, it is recognized that there may be some C/CE that may become the responsibility of the CSP if the Mission Owner chooses to store and process PII and/or PHI in the CSO. Typically, assessment of these C/CEs would be negotiated by the Mission Owner with the CSP.
NOTE: Some PaaS CSOs are intended to handle PII/PHI like some SaaS CSOs. These are typically very much like a SaaS CSO and as such must be assessed against the Privacy Overlay.
DISA is not assessing CSOs for privacy or including privacy qualifiers in DoD PAs. Mission Owners are responsible for Privacy overlay assessments of the P/SaaS CSOs used and any applications built on I/PaaS. Specific guidance regarding what Privacy overlay C/CEs apply to CSPs vs Mission Owners will be provided in a future release of this SRG.
If the Mission Owner’s cloud system/application is intended to store and process PII and/or PHI, the system/application must already comply with the privacy requirements which are codified in the Privacy Overlay. Therefore, Privacy Overlay assessment to include PA riders must be incorporated into a Mission Owner’s CSP evaluation /selection/acquisition process and into their assessment process for their mission system’s ATO.
NOTE: more specific guidance regarding what Privacy overlay C/CEs apply to CSPs vs Mission Owners will be provided in a future release of this SRG.
Table 3 shows the C/CEs designated for the Mission Owner to optionally address in the contract or SLA, over and above the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CEs which must be included by default. While these C/CEs generally address system availability, they apply to the availability of information related to continuous monitoring, incident response, and other security issues. It must be noted that this listing does not preclude the Mission Owner from addressing any control or enhancement from any CNSSI 1253 baseline or the NIST SP 800-53 rev4 in the contract/SLA if they need the control/enhancement to be provided/met by the CSP to secure their system or application. Assessment and continuous monitoring of compliance with these C/CEs is the responsibility of the Mission Owner as negotiated with the CSP in attaining and maintaining the mission’s ATO. These C/CEs are not assessed toward the award of a DoD PA at this time.
Table 3 - Security Controls/Enhancements to be addressed in the Contract/SLA
SP 800-53r4 Cont./Enh. ID |
Level 4 |
Level 5 |
Level 6 |
AC-02 (13) |
X |
X |
X |
AC-03 (04) |
X |
X |
X |
AC-12 (01) |
|
X |
X |
AC-16 |
X |
X |
X |
AC-16 (06) |
X |
X |
X |
AU-10 |
|
X |
X |
IA-03 (01) |
X |
X |
X |
PS-04 (01) |
X |
|
|
PS-06 (03) |
X |
|
|
SC-07 (11) |
X |
|
|
SC-07 (14) |
X |
|
|
SC-18 (03) |
|
|
X |
SC-18 (04) |
|
X |
X |
Total |
9 |
10 |
9 |
The following is a list of considerations and/or requirements that must be assessed or reviewed in addition to or in conjunction with the security control assessments for AO acceptance before a Level 4/5/6 PA will be awarded. The listing may not be all inclusive, and specific requirements may not have been fully developed at this time.
The considerations and/or requirements that DoD will assess include, but are not limited to, the following:
NOTE: No SAML guidance is provided in the CC SRG at this time.
NOTE: No specifics are provided regarding this consideration at this time however see the next item for related concerns.
NOTE: No specific requirements other than those noted here are provided.
NOTE: No specific requirements other than those noted here are provided.
Other considerations as realized while assessing the CSO or as a result of lessons learned.
This section deals with legal requirements revolving around the location of DoD information as well as who may have access to it in CSP facilities and CSOs.
Legal jurisdiction over information controls where DoD and US government data can be located. This is nuanced by the information being on DoD Premises.
To protect against seizure and improper use by non-US persons and government entities, all data stored and processed by/for the DoD must reside in a facility under the exclusive legal jurisdiction of the US. CSPs will maintain all government data that is not physically located on DoD premises within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas of the US (as defined at FAR 2.101[50]), unless otherwise authorized by the responsible AO, as described in DoDI 8510.01. The contracting officer shall provide written notification to the contractor when the contractor is permitted to maintain Government data at a location outside the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas of the United States.
CSPs will provide the agency a list of the physical locations where the data could be stored at any given time and update that list as new physical locations are added.
On-premises CSOs implemented by a DoD or non-DoD CSP which utilizes a hybrid model employing off-premises CSPs and CSOs to augment the on-premises CSO or by virtually extending the DoD fence-line (DISN boundary) must also meet the location requirements stated here.
Corresponding Security Controls: SA-9(5)
DoD On-Premises Vs Off-Premises relates to the physical or virtual location of a facility or IT infrastructure.
DoD Off-Premises: A facility (building/container) or IT infrastructure is Off-Premises if it is NOT physically or virtually on DoD owned or controlled property (i.e., On-Premises). See DoD On-Premises and DoD Virtually On-Premises below and their definitions in Appendix B for additional details.
DoD On-Premises: A facility (building/container) or IT infrastructure is On-Premises if it is physically on DoD owned or controlled property. That is, it is within the protected perimeter (walls or “fence line”) of a DoD installation (i.e., Base, Camp, Post, or Station (B/C/P/S) or leased commercial space) which is under the direct control of DoD personnel and DoD security policies.
DoD On-Premises includes DoD data centers, other facilities located on a DoD B/C/P/S, or in a commercial or other government facility (or portions thereof) under the direct control of DoD personnel and DoD security policies. A commercial facility, in this sense, means a building or space leased and controlled by DoD. Such facilities are considered to be within the protected perimeter or “fence line” of a DoD controlled installation or property. Physical facilities may be permanent buildings or portable structures such as transit/shipping containers. An example of the latter might be a shipping container housing a commercial CSP’s infrastructure located adjacent to a Core Data Center (CDC) and connected to its network as if it were inside the building.
DoD CSPs will, and commercial CSPs may (under DoD contract), instantiate their CSO architecture on DoD premises (DoD on-premises). Interconnection with DoD networks will be interoperable IAW engineering requirements that meet cybersecurity guidance and controls. Such implementations will be considered DoD Private.
DoD Virtually On-Premises: A DoD Private IT and/or CSO infrastructure located in a physically off-premises location (facility) such as a Federal Government or commercial data center (i.e., facilities under the direct control of non-DoD personnel using non-DoD security policies) may be considered Virtually On-Premises under specific conditions as listed below. These conditions apply certain physical security controls and extend the DISN accreditation boundary. In essence this construct virtually extends the DoD protected perimeter or “fence line” around the infrastructure. It also places the IT/CSO infrastructure and its management plane in one or more DISN enclaves thus enabling alternative approaches for boundary protection such as using CSO provided infrastructure in lieu of a dedicated DoD ICAP/BCAP.
An IT/CSO infrastructure may be considered Virtually On-Premises under the following conditions:
NOTE: additional or alternate physical security and personnel controls may be required for facilities housing classified systems.
The risks and legal considerations in using virtualization technologies further restrict the types of tenants that can obtain cloud services from a virtualized environment on the same physical infrastructure and the types of cloud deployment models (i.e., public, private, community, and hybrid) in which the various types of DoD information may be processed or stored.
While shared cloud environments provide significant opportunities for DoD entities, they also present unique risks to DoD data and systems that must be addressed. These risks include exploitation of vulnerabilities in virtualization technologies, interfaces to external systems, APIs, and management systems. These have the potential for providing back door connections and CSP privileged user access to customer’s systems and data. While proper configuration of the virtual and physical environment can mitigate many of these threats, there is still residual risk that may or may not be acceptable to DoD. Legal concerns such as e-discovery and law enforcement seizure of non-government CSP customer/tenant’s data pose a threat to DoD data if it is in the same storage media. Due to these concerns, DoD is currently taking a cautious approach with regard to Level 5 information.
Infrastructure (as related to cloud services), is the physical hardware (i.e., servers and storage), and the network interconnecting the hardware that supports the cloud service and its virtualization technology (if used). This includes the systems and networks used by the CSP to manage the infrastructure. While the physical space in which this infrastructure is housed is part of the CSP’s infrastructure, this is not a factor in DoD’s separation restrictions except at Level 6.
Dedicated infrastructure (as related to cloud services) refers to the cloud service infrastructure being dedicated to serving a single customer organization or a specific group of customer organizations. A private cloud service implements dedicated infrastructure to serve one customer organization. This SRG considers DoD as the organization which consists of all DoD components. This SRG restricts private cloud for DoD as meaning dedicated infrastructure that serves DoD users and tenants, and designates this as a DoD private cloud. DoD private clouds or cloud service offerings may be multi-tenant serving all or some DoD components or may be single tenant serving a single mission. A community cloud service implements dedicated infrastructure to serve a specific group or class of customer organizations. Since the definition of DoD private could also be considered a DoD community cloud, this SRG will use the term DoD private/community. This SRG will also use the term Federal Government community, meaning dedicated multi-tenant infrastructure that serves both DoD components and mission owners as well as other Federal Government agencies and their mission owners.
Corresponding Security Controls: SC-4
Impact Level 2 cloud services can be offered on any of the four deployment models. Information that may be processed and stored at Impact Levels 2 can be processed on-premises or off-premises, as long as the physical location of the information is restricted as described in Section 5.2.1, Jurisdiction/Location Requirements.
For a Level 2 PA, at this time, DoD is accepting the risk that this is adequately covered by a FedRAMP Moderate PA such that the requirement will not be additionally assessed for a Level 2 PA.
Impact Level 4 cloud services can be offered on any of the four deployment models. Information that may be processed and stored at Impact 4 can be processed on-premises or off-premises, as long as the physical location of the information is restricted as described in Section 5.2.1, Jurisdiction/Location Requirements.
For a Level 4 PA, the CSP must provide evidence of strong virtual separation controls and monitoring in support of the ability to meet “search and seizure” requests for non-DoD information and data without the release of DoD information and data and vice-versa. Additionally the strong virtual separation controls must prevent/mitigate/eliminate the potential vulnerability whereby one CSP customer using the same physical hardware as another CSP customer can gain access to the other’s information/data, virtual network, or virtual machines. Monitoring must detect such unauthorized accesses and/or attempts so that incident response can occur.
Information that must be processed and stored at Impact Level 5 can only be processed in a DoD private/community or federal government community cloud, on-premises or off-premises in any cloud deployment model that restricts the physical location of the information as described in Section 5.2.1, Jurisdiction/Location Requirements.
The following also applies:
NOTE: While multi-tenant CSOs marketed as ITAR compliant”, “government clouds”, or “clouds for government” might restrict data location to US jurisdiction, and might restrict the personnel that manage the CSO to , they do not necessarily meet the standard for “dedicated” to the Federal Government or DoD. If the cloud service, or the underlying infrastructure it resides on, hosts any non-Federal US government tenant, (such as state, local, or tribal governments, industry/academic partners, or foreign governments) it is considered a public cloud for purposes of this SRG. As such, while DoD sees this as adequate for Level 4, this alleged attribute is not sufficient for CSP selection by DoD Mission Owners for Level 5 missions. This restriction might be waived by DoD if the CSP and CSO can demonstrate sufficient separation between tenant’s workloads and data and/or the general government community and Federal Government Community.
Impact Level 6 is reserved for the storage and processing of information classified up to SECRET. Information that must be processed and stored at Impact Level 6 can only be processed in a DoD private/community or Federal Government community cloud, on-premises or off-premises in any cloud deployment model that restricts the physical location of the information as described in Section 5.2.1, Jurisdiction/Location Requirements.
The following applies:
Under Federal law, the Federal government reserves the right for law enforcement officials to perform criminal investigations of Federal Government employees and elected officials as well as anyone with access to Federal Government information for misconduct, misuse of such data, or for incident investigation. Such criminal investigations may include a need for E-Discovery on Federal government information to collect digital evidence. As such the CSP must be able to segregate Federal government information from non-Federal Government information within the CSO. The granularity of separation must be at the Federal government Mission Owner level. The CSP must also ensure this segregation requirement flows down to all CSP/Integrator subcontracted CSP/CSOs. The CSP and subcontractors must then be capable, upon request of the contracting officer(s) or in response to a subpoena, of isolating one or more Federal Government Mission Owner’s data into an environment where it may be reviewed, scanned, or forensically evaluated in a secure space or via secure remote connection with access limited to authorized Government personnel identified by the Contracting Officer, and without the CSP’s involvement or provide a forensic digital image of the requested Federal government information. See Section 6.5.4, Digital Forensics in the Cloud and Support for Law Enforcement/Criminal Investigation for additional information on capturing and protecting forensic digital images.
All DoD information/data placed or created by DoD users in a CSP’s CSO is owned by the DoD, the Mission Owner, and/or their Information Owner unless otherwise stipulated in the CSP’s contract with the DoD. The CSP has no rights to the DoD’s information/data. DoD information/data includes logs and monitoring data created within and by a Mission Owner’s system/application implemented in IaaS/PaaS CSOs as well as logs created for and provided to the Mission Owner related to their usage and management of the CSO. DoD also maintains ownership of all information/data created by the CSP/CSO for DoD if such activities are part of the contract. CSPs seeking a DoD PA must agree that DoD remains the owner of all DoD data in a CSO.
CSPs are prohibited from using DoD data in any way other than that required to provide contracted services to DoD (e.g., customer access/usage logs used for billing) This means that the CSP may not “data mine” DoD email, files, information in data bases, or communications for any purpose other than that stipulated in the contract.
The CSP maintains ownership of all logs and monitoring data created within the CSO related to the Mission Owner’s usage and management of the CSO. This includes logs related to customer access and usage used for billing, data used for capacity planning for the CSO, monitoring data related to malicious activities or CSO health. This also includes all audit content specified by the AU-2 security control for the time period specified by AU-11. While the CSP retains ownership of this information, some or all must be shared with the Mission Owner for the purpose of planning, forensics, billing validation, retention, etc. The ownership of the copies of this information shared with the DoD/Mission Owner is maintained by the DoD/Mission Owner.
Additionally, all DoD information/data and CSP information/data shared with the Mission Owner must be made available for off-boarding and backup IAW sections 5.8, Data Retrieval and Destruction for Off-boarding from a CSO and 5.12 - Backup.
Mission Owners must address data ownership in the contract.
Related Security Controls: AC-23
Both FedRAMP and DoD require an ongoing assessment and authorization capability for CSOs providing services to the DoD. This capability is built upon the DoD RMF and the FedRAMP continuous monitoring strategy, as described in the Guide to Understanding FedRAMP [51]and FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide.[52] These ongoing assessment processes which are discussed in the following sections include continuous monitoring and change control.
Ongoing assessment processes do not differ by impact level, though the artifacts produced as part of those processes may. (e.g., Level 2 CSOs will have fewer controls to monitor than Level 4 CSOs.) These processes will differ, however, based on whether or not CSOs are part of the FedRAMP catalog or have a FedRAMP JAB PA. These differences are based on the division of responsibility over the set of security controls and the ability of DoD to access the artifacts produced as part of the FedRAMP processes.
Ongoing assessment responsibility mirrors the divided responsibilities and control inherent in cloud systems. FedRAMP’s processes will be leveraged for all CSOs in the FedRAMP catalog. This process, however, only covers the portion of the system that is governed by the FedRAMP PA, such as the FedRAMP Moderate security controls. The DoD change control process will cover the portion of the system that is governed by the DoD PA, such as the FedRAMP+ security controls. Ongoing assessment of controls that are levied by the Mission Owner, such as those specified in the SLA, and do not fall under the FedRAMP or DoD PAs is the responsibility of the Mission Owner. This division of assessment responsibility is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Ongoing Assessment Division of Responsibility
[51] Guide to Understanding FedRAMP: https://www.fedramp.gov/resources/documents/
[52] FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide: https://www.fedramp.gov/resources/documents/
This section pertains specifically to continuous monitoring of security controls, as defined by CNSSI 4009 and NIST SP 800-137. Further information on monitoring activities performed as part of Computer Network Defense, are described in Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response.
Once a DoD PA is granted, the CSP is expected to maintain the security posture of the CSO through continuous and periodic vulnerability scans, DoD annual assessments, incident management, and effective implementation of operational processes and procedures. Integral to this is periodic reporting to the appropriate AO. The continuous monitoring artifacts required to maintain a DoD PA are the same as those required by FedRAMP. (Annual assessments, monthly vulnerability scans, etc.) However, those artifacts must include additional information for FedRAMP+ controls and DoD requirements.
Continuous monitoring data flows will differ for CSPs depending on whether their CSOs have a FedRAMP JAB PA, a 3PAO assessed non-DoD Federal Agency ATO, or DoD Assessed PA (as described in Section 0). These data flows are reflected in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 respectively.
In some cases, CSPs such as, but not limited to, DoD Private CSOs or CSOs in the FedRAMP catalog with a non-DoD Agency ATO will provide continuous monitoring artifacts directly to DISA. In such cases, the CSP will utilize commercial standard formats (e.g., comma-separated values, XML) that enable DoD to automate the ingest of continuous monitoring data.
NOTE: For XML exchanges, National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) based XML is the preferred format IAW DoDI 8320.07[53], August 3, 2015. Additional information regarding this format can be found at www.niem.gov.
All CSP CSOs are required to have FedRAMP annual assessments performed by a 3PAO for the maintenance of their FedRAMP PA. DoD also requires annual assessments performed by a 3PAO or approved DoD SCA organization for the maintenance of their Level 4 and above DoD PA. It is expected that CSOs in both the FedRAMP and DoD catalogs will have a single annual assessment to cover this requirement for both FedRAMP and DoD. CSOs in the FedRAMP catalog will follow the process described in the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide[54]. DoD Annual assessments will minimally include the set of controls listed in Appendix A of that document, as well as any other controls specified by the DISA AO. CSOs with a DoD PA that are not in the FedRAMP catalog will follow the DoD RMF process for continuous monitoring and associated assessments.
Corresponding Security Controls: CA-7
As described in Section 4.1, Assessment of Commercial/Non-DoD Cloud Services, the CSOs in the FedRAMP catalog that are eligible for DoD PAs include CSOs having a JAB PA (which is 3PAO assessed) or a 3PAO assessed Federal Agency ATO. All reports required by the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide, including self- assessments, for these CSOs will be provided to the FedRAMP Information System Security Officer (ISSO). These will be reviewed by the FedRAMP TRs (which include DoD personnel) and approved by the JAB if necessary.
Continuous monitoring requirements for DoD are the same as those for FedRAMP, except that all reports and artifacts for FedRAMP+ C/CEs will be provided directly to DISA AO representatives as the DoD single point of CSP contact for this information. DISA will share appropriate continuous monitoring information (FedRAMP and FedRAMP+) with Mission Owners, AOs, and Cybersecurity Service Providers (CSSPs).
The information will be used by Mission Owners, their AOs, and the DISA AO to assess and authorize the CSO. Those evaluations will inform decisions to continue the ATO for the Mission Owner’s system and the PA for the CSP respectively. The DISA AO will coordinate closely with Mission Owners in the event that the withdrawal of a PA must be considered upon the basis of this requirement.
Figure 4 shows the normal flow of continuous monitoring information if the CSP has a FedRAMP JAB PA.
Figure 4 – DoD Continuous Monitoring for CSOs with a FedRAMP JAB PA
Figure 5 shows the flow of continuous monitoring information if the CSO has a 3PAO assessed non-DoD Federal Agency ATO listed in the FedRAMP catalog. Since the FedRAMP JAB does not control the Agency ATO, information may not flow from the CSP to the FedRAMP PMO.
Figure 5 – DoD Continuous Monitoring for FedRAMP CSOs with a 3PAO assessed Non-DoD Federal Agency ATO
Figure 6 shows the flow of continuous monitoring information for DoD private/community CSOs that have a DoD PA and ATO, but are not in the FedRAMP catalog. Continuous monitoring will be directed by the DoD RMF, rather than the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide. As part of the RMF authorization process, CSPs will create a continuous monitoring strategy that meets DoD requirements in the System Security Plan. All reports and artifacts required by that continuous monitoring strategy will be provided by the CSP to DISA. DISA will, in turn, disseminate those artifacts to all Mission Owners utilizing that CSO, the DISA AO, and the Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) entities as defined in Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response..
6 – DoD Continuous Monitoring for DoD Assessed CSOs
The DoD change control process for CSOs mirrors that of FedRAMP, with a focus on how changes affect the DoD PA and the security of hosted mission systems/applications and information.
The FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide, dated June 6, 2014, states:
“Systems are dynamic and FedRAMP anticipates that all systems are in a constant state of change. Configuration management and change control processes help maintain a secure baseline configuration of the CSP’s architecture. Routine day-to-day changes are managed through the CSP’s change management process described in their Configuration Management Plan.
However, before a planned significant change takes place, CSP’s must perform a Security Impact Analysis, consistent with control CM-4, to determine if the change will adversely affect the security of the system. The Security Impact Analysis is a standard part of a CSP’s change control process as described in the CSP’s Configuration Management Plan.”
As with FedRAMP, CSPs must give DoD 30-day notice prior to significant changes. If a change is made without approval that affects the risk posture of the system, the DISA AO can revoke the DoD PA. As with continuous monitoring, the change control process will differ for CSPs depending on if they are in the FedRAMP catalog and if they have a DoD assessed PA or ATO. Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 show these change control processes.
NOTE: NIST SP 800-37 Revision 1, Appendix F February 2010[55] defines a significant change as follows: “a change that is likely to affect the security state of an information system.” Examples are provided as follows: “Significant changes to an information system may include for example: (i) installation of a new or upgraded operating system, middleware component, or application; (ii) modifications to system ports, protocols, or services; (iii) installation of a new or upgraded hardware platform; (iv) modifications to cryptographic modules or services; or (v) modifications to security controls. Examples of significant changes to the environment of operation may include for example: (i) moving to a new facility; (ii) adding new core missions or business functions; (iii) acquiring specific and credible threat information that the organization is being targeted by a threat source; or (iv) establishing new/modified laws, directives, policies, or regulations.”
Corresponding Security Controls: CM-3, CM-4, CA-6
The FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Guide defines a significant change as a change to the scope of an approved PA or an impact to the authorization boundary of the CSO. The CSP will follow procedures defined in the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide by submitting a FedRAMP Significant Change Security Impact Analysis Form[56] to the FedRAMP PMO. The review of the security implications of significant changes will be performed at multiple layers, as reflected in Figure 7. The planned change will be reviewed by the FedRAMP ISSO and/or JAB Technical Representatives (TRs), and then forwarded to the JAB for approval. Simultaneously the DoD JAB TR will notify DISA, who will in turn notify all Mission Owners utilizing that CSO, the DISA AO, and the CSSP entities as defined in Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response. During FedRAMP ISSO review, the DoD JAB TR will collect comments from DoD stake holders and inform the FedRAMP ISSO if planned changes will adversely affect the security of the information hosted by the CSO for DoD cloud customers. DoD may communicate directly with the CSP and their 3PAO regarding change approval or concerns over the impact on DoD’s FedRAMP+ C/CEs.
FedRAMP requires a security assessment be performed by a 3PAO after a significant change is implemented, with a corresponding Security Assessment Report created. CSPs must also include all FedRAMP+ C/CEs in post-change assessments to meet DoD requirements. DISA will notify affected Mission Owners of proposed significant changes and provide its assessment of the change within the scope of the CSO PA. Mission Owners are responsible for assessing the effects of proposed changes for effects that fall within the scope of their SLAs.
Figure 7 shows the normal flow of significant change information if the CSP has a FedRAMP JAB PA.
Figure 7 - DoD Change Control Process for CSPs CSOs with a FedRAMP JAB PA
When a CSO having a DoD PA is included in the FedRAMP catalog, but does not have a JAB PA, the CSP will notify DISA directly in addition to any other required points of contact. (e.g., A CSP with a non-DoD agency ATO would notify both that agency and DISA). This is required because the FedRAMP JAB does not control the Agency ATO, and information may not flow from the CSP to the FedRAMP PMO and DISA. DISA will in turn notify all Mission Owners utilizing that CSO, the DISA AO, and the CSSP entities as defined in Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response. The Security Impact Analysis must additionally cover the FedRAMP+ C/CEs. Once informed, DISA will review the proposed change to assess if it will, and ensure it will not, adversely affect the security of the DoD Information Network (DoDIN) as a whole or the DISN with respect to the impact level at which it is authorized. Any updates to the FedRAMP Security Package will be forwarded to DISA.
As with FedRAMP, DoD requires a security assessment be performed by a 3PAO after a significant change is implemented, with a corresponding Security Assessment Report created. CSPs must also include all FedRAMP+ C/CEs in post-change assessments to meet DoD requirements. DISA will notify affected Mission Owners of proposed significant changes and provide its assessment of the change within the scope of the CSO PA. Mission Owners are responsible for assessing the effects of proposed changes for effects that fall within the scope of their SLAs
Figure 8 shows the normal flow of significant change information if the CSO has a 3PAO assessed Non-DoD Federal Agency ATO listed in the FedRAMP catalog. Since the FedRAMP JAB does not control the Agency ATO, information from the CSP may not flow from the authorizing agency to the FedRAMP PMO. To avoid the possibility of DoD not being informed of potential changes, CSPs must send change requests to DISA in addition to the authorizing agency.
Figure 8 - DoD Change Control Process for FedRAMP CSPs CSOs with a 3PAO assessed Federal Agency ATO
[56] Significant Change Form: https://www.fedramp.gov/files/2015/03/Significant_Change_Form_110812.doc
Figure 9 shows the flow of significant change for non-FedRAMP CSOs having a DoD PA or ATO assessed by a DoD SCA organization and authorized by a DoD AO. The review of significant change information will be directed by the DoD RMF, rather than the FedRAMP change control process. CSPs will have similar responsibilities, but will report directly to DISA. DISA will, in turn, disseminate those artifacts to all Mission Owners utilizing that CSO, the DISA AO, and the CSSP entities as defined in Section 6, Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response. These entities will review the proposed change to ensure it will not adversely affect the security posture of the CSO with respect to its PA or ATO. The planned change will also be reviewed by the Mission Owners utilizing the CSO for any adverse impact with regard to their specific usage of the CSO.
Figure 9 - DoD Change Control Process for DoD Self-Assessed CSPs/CSOs
In accordance with FedRAMP's selection of IA-2(12) which states “The information system accepts and electronically verifies Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentials” and the FedRAMP supplemental guidance which states “Include Common Access Card (CAC), i.e., the DoD technical implementation of PIV/FIPS 201/HSPD-12”, CSPs are required to integrate with and use the DoD PKI for DoD entity authentication. (E.g., a web portal that DoD and Federal Government Mission Owner’s privileged users log into to configure the CSO.)
The following sections describe how the CSP fulfills its responsibilities with additional detail in the supporting subsections:
Impact Level 2: Whenever a CSP is responsible for authentication of entities and/or identifying a hosted DoD information system, the CSP will use DoD PKI certificates in compliance with DoDI 8520.03. CSPs will enforce the use of a physical token referred to as the “Common Access Card (CAC)” or “Alt Token” for the authentication of DoD privileged users. CSPs must make use of DoD Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) or Certificate Revocation List (CRL) resources for checking revocation of DoD certificates and DoD Certificate Authorities; and must follow DoD instructions and industry best practices for the management and protection of cryptographic keys.
Impact Levels 4/5: Whenever a CSP is responsible for authentication of entities and/or identifying a hosted DoD information system, the CSP will use DoD PKI certificates in compliance with DoDI 8520.03. CSPs will enforce the use of a physical token referred to as the “Common Access Card (CAC)” or “Alt Token” for the authentication of DoD privileged and DoD non-privileged users. CSPs must make use of DoD OCSP or CRL resources for checking revocation of DoD certificates and DoD Certificate Authorities; and must follow DoD instructions and industry best practices for the management and protection of cryptographic keys. DoD issued PKI server certificates will be used to identify the CSP's DoD customer ordering/service management portals and SaaS applications and services contracted by and dedicated to DoD use.
Impact Level 6: Whenever an on-premises CSO is responsible for authentication of DoD entities and/or identifying a hosted DoD information system, the CSP will use NSS PKI certificates in compliance with DoDI 8520.03 and CNSSP-25. CSPs will enforce the use of a physical token referred to as the CNSS Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) Hardware Token for the authentication of DoD Mission owner and CSP privileged and non-privileged end users. When implementing NSS PKI, CSPs must make use of NSS OCSP or CRL resources for checking revocation of NSS certificates and NSS Certificate Authorities; and must follow CNSS / NSA instructions for the management and protection of cryptographic keys. CNSS issued PKI server certificates will be used to identify the CSP's DoD customer ordering/service management portals and SaaS applications and services contracted by and dedicated to DoD use.
NOTE: A CSP must PK enable their customer ordering/service management portals for all service offerings and their SaaS service offerings for general DoD user access at levels 4 and up or provide a customer configurable service offering to permit PK enabling and integration with the required PKI. For complete compliance the CSP will integrate with the DoD PKI and the Federal PKI for levels 2 through 5. For Level 6 the CSP will integrate with the NSS (SIPRNet) PKI. Both the DoD and NSS PKI are operated by DISA[57] while the Federal PKI is operated by GSA[58]. PK enabled customer ordering/service management portals may require a separate URL or dedicated application / application interface as best determined by the CSP to meet the Federal Government requirement.
Corresponding Security Controls: IA-2, IA-2(1), IA-2(2), IA-2(3), IA-2(8), IA-2(11), IA-2(12), IA-5(2), IA-5(11), IA-7, IA-8
NOTE: NSS PKI and SIPRNet token requirements for off-premises Level 6 CSPs and CSOs need to be coordinated with OUSD(I) and DSS. Associated policies are addressed above in Section 4.2, Assessment of DoD Cloud Services and Enterprise Services Applications under the Impact Level 6 topic. Coordinated guidance and requirements for off-premises CSPs and their CSOs for a DoD Level 6 provisional authorization may appear in a future release of the CC SRG. This note applies to all subsections in Section 5.4.
DoDI 8520.03, Identity Authentication for Information Systems is the DoD policy that defines the credentials that DoD privileged and non-privileged users must use to identify themselves to DoD information systems to be authenticated before being granted access. It also defines the credentials that DoD information systems use to identify themselves to each other. This is fully applicable to DoD information systems instantiated on cloud services. Additionally, CNSS Policy #25 and CNSSI 1300 provide similar guidance for NSS. For the purpose of this discussion, the process of identification and authentication will be referred to as I&A.
This section defines the Mission Owner access control credentials required at each information impact level IAW DoDI 8520.03 in the following categories:
Table 4 lists the Mission Owner credential types required at each impact level for various use cases and the policy under which they are required. The DoD Policy column identifies the authentication methods that Mission Owners must implement for use in the systems and applications they instantiate in a CSP’s CSO. This is primarily applicable to IaaS/PaaS. The IA-2(12) column identifies the authentication methods that CSPs must implement for use in the service offerings they provide to their DoD customer. This primarily applies to SaaS and CSP's customer ordering/service management portals.
Table 4 - Mission Owner Credentials
Impact Level |
Implemented by Mission Owner IAW DoD policy |
Implemented by CSP IAW FedRAMP's selection of IA-2(12): |
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 4 and 5 |
|
|
Level 6 |
|
|
NOTE: Mission Owner personnel that are involved in managing any portion of a CSP’s service offering or who are able to order services from the CSP (i.e., possesses accounts on the CSP’s customer ordering and service management interfaces or portals for any service offering (IaaS/PaaS, SaaS)), are considered Privileged Users by DoD and therefore are required to authenticate using DoD CAC, or Alt Token IAW DoDI 8520.03.
NOTE: It is recognized that some Level 4/5 systems must support some non-privileged user populations (e.g., retirees) that cannot receive a DoD CAC/PKI or other DoD-approved PKI authenticator to gain access to CUI (e.g., PII/PHI) for which they have a legal right to access. In cases such as these the Mission Owner will seek AO approval to categorize such data as Unclassified Sensitivity Level 1 IAW DoDI 8520.03, which would permit the use of Credential Strength A. (E.g. A password as an authenticator) While such populations must typically use a UID and strong password managed IAW DoD password policy, the Mission Owner is encouraged to implement stronger measures such as two-step verification where an access code is sent to the user via a different communications path than the one accessing the web site or application after entering the UID/password combination. In effect, this becomes a two-factor authentication system.
[59] DoD-approved PKIs: http://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/interoperability/Pages/index.aspx
[60] DoD-approved PKIs: http://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/interoperability/Pages/index.aspx
[61] DoD-approved PKIs: http://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/interoperability/Pages/index.aspx
This section defines the I&A and access control credentials that the CSP privileged users must use when administering the CSP’s infrastructure supporting Mission Owner’s systems.
Impact Levels 2/4: IAW the separation requirements for Levels 2 and 4 described in Section 5.2.2.1, Impact Level 2 Location and Separation Requirements, and 5.2.2.2 ,Impact Level 4 Location and Separation Requirements, and FedRAMP's selection of IA-2(1) and IA-2(3), the CSP must minimally implement two factor authentication for CSP privileged user access to administer and maintain CSP infrastructure supporting Federal and DoD contracted services. While the best practice of using a hardware token technology implementing a multi-factor one-time password or PKI certificate technology solution similar to DoDI 8520.03 Credential Strength D is preferred, these identity credentials minimally use a multi-token solution or a multi-factor one-time password solution similar to DoDI 8520.03 Credential Strength C.
Impact Level 5: IAW the separation requirements for Level 5 described in Section 5.2.2.3, Impact Level 5 Location and Separation Requirements and DoD policy, the CSP must implement a strong two-factor I&A capability for CSP privileged user access to administer and maintain dedicated CSP infrastructure supporting Federal and DoD contracted services. The strong two-factor I&A capability must be dedicated to the dedicated CSP infrastructure. These identity credentials minimally use a hardware token technology implementing a multi-factor one-time password or PKI certificate technology solution similar to DoDI 8520.03 Credential Strength D.
NOTE: While DoDI 8520.03 requires that all administrators of DoD or partner managed systems use identity Credential Strength E (i.e., hardware token PKI technology issued by an identity credential service provider that is either a Federal agency, an approved shared service provider under the Federal PKI Policy Authority Program, or an identity credential service provider that has been specifically approved by the DoD CIO as a Credential Strength E service provider e.g., DoD CAC or ALT) for privileged access to DoD systems, DoD is not enforcing this requirement on CSP infrastructure administrators / privileged users managing CSP assets at this time.
Impact Level 6: IAW the separation requirements for Level 6 described in Section 5.2.2.4, Impact Level 6 Location and Separation Requirements and CNSS policy, the CSP must implement SIPRNet Token/PKI authentication for CSP privileged user access to administer and maintain dedicated CSP infrastructure supporting Federal and DoD contracted Level 6 services connected to SIPRNet.
Public Key (PK) enabling refers to the process through which hosts and applications are enabled to hold or use PKI certificates for the following:
The IASE web site page Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Public Key Enabling (PKE)[62] provides information needed to PK-enable Mission Owner’s systems/applications instantiated on CSP’s IaaS/PaaS offerings and CSP’s PK-enabling of SaaS offerings and service ordering/management portals/interfaces.
DoD-specific policy, guidance and operational constraints must be followed as appropriate by CSPs. DISA will evaluate CSP submitted equivalencies to any specific security control, SRG, or STIG requirement on a case by case basis.
Mission Owners must utilize all applicable DoD SRGs and STIGs to secure all Mission Owner systems and applications instantiated on CSP’s IaaS and PaaS at all levels.
CSP’s CSOs are subject to the FedRAMP selected SP 800-53 security control CM-6. This is applicable to all infrastructure, hardware and software, which constitutes and supports the CSP’s CSO whether it is IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. CSOs are assessed under FedRAMP in accordance with the security configuration checklists specified in the FedRAMP value.
All STIGs and SRGs can be found on DISA’s IASE web site[63] along with an SRG/STIG Applicability Guide[64].
DoD recommends that STIGs and/or SRGs be used by CSPs to fulfill the CM-6 baseline configuration requirement for systems that support DoD systems as follows:
Impact Level 2: While the use of STIGs and SRGs by CSPs is preferable, industry standard baselines such as those provided by the Center for Internet Security (CIS) benchmarks are an acceptable alternative to the STIGs and SRGs.
Impact Levels 4/5/6: STIGs are applicable if the CSP utilizes the product a STIG addresses. SRGs are applicable in lieu of STIGs if a product specific STIG is not available. However, the SP 800-53 control applies whether or not a STIG or SRG is available. While the DoD Level 4/5/6 value for CM-6 is to utilize DoD SRGs and STIGs as applicable, DISA will evaluate the CSP’s usage of commercial equivalencies (e.g., CIS benchmarks) on a case by case basis.
For dedicated infrastructure that only serves DoD tenants, CSPs must utilize all applicable DoD STIGs and/or SRGs to secure all DoD contracted cloud computing services. This applies at levels 4 and above for IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS offerings.
Corresponding Security Controls: CM-6
[63] STIGs and SRGs: http://iase.disa.mil/Pages/index.aspx
[64] SRG/STIG Applicability Guide: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/agct/Pages/index.aspx
The following sections discuss facility and personnel requirements as they align to the impact levels.
Impact Level 2: CSP data processing facilities supporting Level 2 information will meet the physical security requirements defined in the FedRAMP Moderate baseline.
Impact Levels 4 and 5: CSP data processing facilities supporting Level 4 and 5 CSOs/information will meet the physical security requirements defined in the FedRAMP Moderate baseline as well as any FedRAMP+ C/CEs related to physical security.
Impact Level 6: DoD data on-premises processing facilities that support cloud services infrastructure and classified service offerings will be housed in facilities (designated as a secure room) designed, built, and approved for open storage commensurate with the highest classification level of the information stored, processed, or transmitted as defined in DoDM 5200.01 Volume 3, DoD Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information[65].
The concept of cloud operations, given the shared responsibilities between multiple organizations along with the advanced technology being applied within this space, can impact personnel security requirements. The ability for a CSP’s personnel to alter the security controls/environment of a provisioned offering and the security of the system/application/data processing within the offering may vary based on the processes/controls used by the CSP. The components of the underlying infrastructure (e.g., hypervisor, storage subsystems, network devices) and the type of service (e.g., IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) provided by the CSP will further define the access and resulting risk that CSP’s employees can pose to DoD mission or data. While CSP personnel are typically not approved for access to customer data/information for need-to-know reasons (except for information approved for public release), they are considered to be able to gain access to the information through their duties.
Access to DoD information at the various levels above Level 2 is limited by national affiliation. For other than US Citizens or Non-Citizen US Nationals as defined in 8 U.S. Code § 1408[66], national affiliation is defined in 22 CFR 120.15[67] – US person and 120.16 – Foreign person.
The limitations by Information Impact Level are as follows:
Impact Level 2: CSP personnel having access to the systems processing/storing DoD public information may be US Citizens, US Nationals, US persons, or Foreign persons. i.e., there is no restriction.
Impact Level 4/5: CSP personnel having access to the systems processing/storing DoD CUI information or to the information itself at Impact Level 4/5 must be US Citizens, US Nationals, or US Persons. No Foreign persons may have such access.
Impact Level 6: CSP personnel having access to systems processing/storing classified information or to the information itself must be US Citizens.
Corresponding Security Controls: PS-2, PS-3
[66] 8 U.S. Code § 1408: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title8/pdf/USCODE-2010-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partI-sec1408.pdf
[67] 22 CFR 120.15, 120-16: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title22-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title22-vol1-sec120-15.pdf
The FedRAMP Moderate baseline includes the personnel security controls PS-2, PS-3, and enhancement PS-3(3). Under PS-2, the CSP is required to “assign a risk designation to all organizational positions” and “Establish screening criteria for individuals filling those positions”. Supplemental guidance states “Position risk designations reflect Office of Personnel Management (OPM) policy and guidance.” The OPM position designation process takes into account the duties, level of supervision, and the scope over which misconduct might have an effect (i.e., worldwide/government-wide, multi-agency, or agency). For IT system and information access it also takes into account the sensitivity level of the information accessed (i.e., non-CUI, CUI, and classified).
The OPM Position Designation System October 2010 document[68] and OPM Position Designation Tool[69] are provided to enable Federal Agencies a methodical and consistent means to determine position sensitivity for National Security Positions (e.g., positions concerned with the protection of the Nation from foreign aggression or espionage or positions that require regular access to classified information) and Public Trust Positions (e.g., positions at the high or moderate risk levels, which includes responsibility for protection of information security systems). Position risk levels are determined using the Position Designation Tool. A position may have both National Security and Public Trust considerations that will jointly impact the sensitivity level and ultimately the type of security investigation required. The Position Sensitivity Tool will be used to determine position sensitivity, position risk levels and investigation requirements for key CSP personnel.
DoD’s primary concern is CSP personnel with direct access to or the ability to gain access to DoD information, or that have responsibilities that can affect the security of the information technology processing, storing, or transmitting that information. Under OPM policy, such a person with access to CUI or classified information is designated as filling a position designated as “critical-sensitive” or “high risk”. However, if the person’s “work is carried out under technical review of a higher authority” (i.e., a person holding a “critical-sensitive” or “high risk” position), then the position may be designated as “noncritical-sensitive” or “moderate risk”. Positions only having access to non-CUI and publicly released information could have a designation of “non-sensitive” or “low risk”. All positions are considered to have some level of “public trust”.
From a DoD policy perspective under PS-2 and IAW DoD 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program[70] Category I automated data processing (ADP) (ADP-1 or IT-1), positions include those in which an individual is responsible for the planning, direction, and implementation of a computer security program; has major responsibility for the direction, planning and design of a computer system, including the hardware and software; or can access a system during the operation or maintenance in such a way and with a relatively high risk for causing grave damage or realize a significant personal gain. These positions are designated “critical-sensitive”. Category II automated data processing (ADP) (ADP-2 or IT-2) positions include those in which an individual may have the same responsibilities listed for ADP-1 but whose work is technically reviewed by a higher authority of the ADP-I category to insure the integrity of the system. These positions are designated “noncritical-sensitive”. These designations are consistent with the OPM Position Designation System document and automated tool.
To receive a DoD PA, the CSP must demonstrate that their personnel position categorization and compliance with PS-2 is equivalent to the OPM position designations for the similar CSP positions to the “critical-sensitive” (e.g., DoD’s ADP-1) or “high risk”; “noncritical-sensitive” (e.g., DoD’s ADP-2) or “moderate risk”; and/or “non-sensitive” or “low risk” (i.e., access to only non-CUI and public information) position designations. These designations drive the level of screening to be established IAW the second half of PS-2 and for PS-3.
[68] OPM Position Designation System document: http://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/position-designation-tool/oct2010.pdf
[69] OPM Position Designation Tool: http://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/position-designation-tool/
[70] DoD 5200.2-R : http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520002r.pdf
Under PS-3 and PS-3(3), the CSP is required to “Screen individuals prior to authorizing access to the information system”, and re-screen IAW an organizational defined frequency. PS-3(3) addresses “additional personnel screening criteria” for information “requiring special protection” such as CUI.
Per the FedRAMP supplemental guidance for PS-3, found in the FedRAMP Control Specific Contract Clauses v2, June 6, 2014 document[71], an agency must stipulate, “IAW OPM and OMB requirements”, the type of background investigation required for CSP personnel having access to or who can gain access to information. For DoD, the minimum designations are defined by level as follows:
Impact Level 2: CSP personnel supporting Level 2 cloud service offerings will meet the personnel security requirements and undergo background checks as defined in OPM policy IAW the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. As such the minimum background investigation required for CSP personnel having access to Level 2 information based on a “non-sensitive” or “low risk” position designation (i.e., position only has access to public and non-CUI non-critical mission information), is a National Agency Check and Inquiries (NACI). The position sensitivity or risk level and resulting investigation may be elevated beyond the minimum requirement as determined by the Mission Owner / AO, based on additional risk considerations. For instance if the Confidentiality, Integrity or Availability (CIA) of information is determined to be based on a “noncritical-sensitive” or “moderate risk” position using the tool, a National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC) (for “noncritical-sensitive” contractors), or a Moderate Risk Background Investigation (MBI) (for “moderate risk” positions) may be required.
Impact Levels 4/5: CSP personnel supporting Level 4 and 5 cloud service offerings will meet the personnel security requirements and undergo background checks as defined in OPM policy IAW the FedRAMP Moderate baseline, the FedRAMP+ CEs related to personnel security, and DoD personnel security policies. As such the minimum background investigation required for CSP personnel having access to Level 4 and 5 information based on a “critical-sensitive” (e.g., DoD’s ADP-1) position designation, is a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) or a Background Investigation (BI) for a “high risk” position designation. The minimum background investigation required for CSP personnel having access to Level 4 and 5 information based on a “noncritical-sensitive” (e.g., DoD’s ADP-2) is a National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC) (for “noncritical-sensitive” contractors), or a Moderate Risk Background Investigation (MBI) for a “moderate risk” position designation.
To receive a DoD PA for Level 2, 4, or 5, the CSP must comply with the investigation requirements as listed for personnel requiring access to systems and data (e.g., above the hypervisor). Personnel who have access to the CSP infrastructure (e.g. at the hypervisor or below) must comply with OPM investigation requirements or the CSP must demonstrate that their personnel background investigations and compliance with PS-3 and PS-3(3) are consistent with OPM investigation requirements for each position designation.
NOTE: DoD suggests that the CSP request equivalent investigations to those noted above from an investigation contractor listed on the GSA Federal Acquisition Service Contractor Listing for Category 595 27 HR Support: Pre-Employment Background Investigations web site.[72] In using such a contractor and requesting equivalent investigations the CSP can demonstrate equivalency toward receiving a DoD PA, and preparing for the needed investigations following contract award.
Impact Level 6: In accordance with PS-3(1), invoked by the CNSSI 1253 Classified Information Overlay, personnel having access to a secure room, the infrastructure supporting classified processing, or handling classified information, in addition to meeting the public trust position suitability/investigation requirements (e.g., a favorably adjudicated SSBI for a system administrator in a DoD ADP-1 position) must have a security clearance at the appropriate level. Systems and network administrators (i.e., privileged users), while typically not approved to handle classified information for need-to-know reasons, are considered to have access to classified information through their duties. Therefore these individuals require a clearance at the appropriate level for the classified information stored, processed, or transmitted.
DoD personnel clearances are granted through DoD processes as defined in DoDI 5200.02[73] and the DoD 5200.2-R[74], both entitled DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP). Commercial CSPs’ personnel clearances are granted through the Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Process[75].
Contracts for both on-premises and off-premises Level 6 CSOs will include language related to the contractor requiring access to classified information IAW 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 4.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry[76] and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) section 52.204-2 - Security Requirements[77]. Such contractors are required to comply with NISP policies as discussed as cited above WRT organizational facilities clearances and cleared personnel.
To receive a DoD PA for Level 6, the CSP must either have a facility clearance and cleared personnel who will manage the CSO (including top level corporate management), or demonstrate the ability to meet the requirements for such, as defined in Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Process.
For on-premises Level 6 CSOs facilities and personnel clearances will be handled as with any other DoD contract where the contractor needs access to classified information or as required for other purposes.
For off-premises Level 6 CSO facilities and personnel clearances, will be handled through the contracting process as with any other Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractor. This process is the purview of OUSD(I) and DSS.
[71] FedRAMP Control Specific Contract Clauses v2, June 6, 2014; http://cloud.cio.gov/document/control-specific-contract-clauses
[72] GSA Investigation Contractors: http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/sinDetails.do?executeQuery=YES&scheduleNumber=738+X&flag=&filter=&specialItemNumber=595+27
[75] Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Process: http://www.dss.mil/psmo-i/indus_psmo-i_process_applicant.html
In addition to the above requirements, the FedRAMP Control Specific Contract Clauses v2[78], also states the following: “Agencies leveraging FedRAMP Provisional Authorizations will be responsible for conducting their own Background Investigations and or accepting reciprocity from other agencies that have implemented Cloud Service Provider systems.” It also states Agencies are responsible for the screening process, and may want to stipulate additional screening requirements. As part of the FedRAMP+ assessment, the processes used by the CSP will be evaluated and discussed in the PA as appropriate. Additionally, Mission Owners may require that some CSP personnel have clearances in the event classified information sharing may be needed at some point in time. This may be based on the criticality of the CSO’s use case and the criticality or type of information. DoD Components and/or Mission Owners must review the investigation type required for all position designations and address investigation requirements and any clearance requirements as well as funding in their contracts with the CSP.
[78] FedRAMP Control Specific Contract Clauses v2, June 6, 2014; https://www.fedramp.gov/resources/documents/
DoD 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program, Change 3, January 24, 2012[79] describes the DoD IA Workforce Improvement Program. This manual requires DoD IA personnel to be categorized and sets experience, training, and certification standards. DoD CSPs and Mission Owners must comply with DoD 8570.01-M.
CSPs operating at impact level 6 are also required to meet the requirements of DoD 8570.01-M for their personnel. However, non-DoD CSPs at impact levels 2-5 are not subject to these requirements. CSPs at all impact levels are however, required to train security personnel as described in security control AT-3. The determination to not levy DoD 8570.01-M on commercial CSPs is based on the complexities of attempting to change how a commercial CSP that serves customers outside of DoD hires and trains personnel. Commercial CSP security personnel training will be assessed for compliance with security control AT-3 as part of the FedRAMP and DoD PA assessments.
Per CNSSI 4009, CNSS Glossary[80], a data spill or “spillage” is an unauthorized transfer of classified information or Controlled Unclassified Information to an information system that is not accredited for the applicable security level of the data or information.
A data spill is a cyber-incident that requires immediate reporting and response from both the Mission Owner and CSP in order to minimize the scope of the spill and the risk to DoD data. Mission owners will report the incident via their normal channels; the CSP must report the spill to the mission/information owner as well as follow the requirements in section 6.5 Cyber Incident Reporting and Response. While the Mission Owner will most likely detect a spillage within their own dataset, the CSP might also detect a spillage. CSP detection may depend on a particular service offering where the CSP might have intentional access to the content of a Mission Owner information system.
Cloud environments present a unique challenge for data spill response. Data spills in traditional IT are typically remediated or “cleaned” by sanitizing affected hardware to ensure that reconstruction of spilled data is impossible or impractical. This process requires access to physical storage media and frequently involves storage resources being taken offline until the cleanup is complete. Such loss of availability is not acceptable in a cloud environment with multiple tenants sharing the same infrastructure. CSP use of storage virtualization can generate numerous, dynamic instantiations of data and makes physical data locations difficult to ascertain. This makes physical sanitization methods non-viable for data spill remediation in cloud services. These challenges require a method for mitigating data spill cyber incidents that occur in the cloud.
Where the Mission Owner has control over the cloud environment and/or how their data is stored as in IaaS and some PaaS CSOs, cryptographic erase described in Section 5.11.1, Cryptographic Erase, provides such a method. Cryptographic erase is a high-assurance way of ensuring data at rest can no longer be read. Additionally, file deletion will most likely ensure the file’s location will be overwritten with new data. This will typically happen quickly in a high use cloud environment. CE coupled with file deletion is faster and more practical than physical sanitization methods in large-scale virtualized environments used by cloud services. Further, DoD control of encryption keys permits mission owners to address data spill incidents without alerting the CSP to the presence of unauthorized data.
However, CE is only an option for data that is encrypted. Mission owners should ensure all data is encrypted at rest consistent with Section 5.11, Encryption of Data-at-Rest in Commercial Cloud Storage.
Upon discovery of a data spill, mission owners should cryptographically erase unauthorized data by deleting the associated decryption key(s), consistent with NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1. Mission owners must also take any necessary steps to remove unauthorized data that may exist in an unencrypted state, such as in memory of a running VM.
Due to data backup and disaster recovery methods used by Mission Owners and CSPs, data spills could affect associated storage. Data spills remediation must extend to storage media where the spilled data might migrate. All backups and mirrored storage affected by the spill must be remediated. Mission owners are responsible for ensuring that all copies of spilled data are cryptographically erased. Timely detection, reporting, and response are key to limiting the migration of spilled data under these circumstances.
Data spills that involve unauthorized data being stored in an unencrypted state in a CSO must be mitigated by the Mission Owner utilizing any available option to make such data unrecoverable. The response to such an event will likely be limited to methods that provide less assurance than cryptographic erase. Mission Owners that do not or cannot utilize encryption at rest must create data spill response procedures that enumerate all data erasure options in a given CSO. Upon discovery of such an incident, a risk analysis should be performed to determine the best course of action to mitigate the risk of reconstruction of unauthorized data. This may or may not include alerting the CSP to the presence of unauthorized data in order to gain cooperation in mitigating the incident.
Where the Mission Owner does not have control over the cloud environment and/or how their data is stored as in most SaaS and some PaaS CSOs, the CSP must provide capabilities within the CSO that can be activated when a spillage is detected. These capabilities should be under the control of the Mission Owner. Granular DAR encryption and data deletion capabilities at the file or database record/field level along with Crypto Erase should be part of such capabilities.
CSPs must provide a spillage remediation plan addressing the above and Mission Owner control of capabilities for all CSOs as part of their provisional authorization package.
Alternate innovative methods for cloud data spill protection/remediation will be assessed for equivalency to standard methods and approved if found sufficient.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-9, MP-6
Off-boarding is the set of activities that take place when a Mission Owner terminates use of a CSO. An off-boarding process is required when a Mission Owner migrates to a new cloud service, a mission reaches end of life, a contract ends, or a CSP ceases operations. The off-boarding process is split into two stages: 1- data retrieval/migration and 2- data sanitization or destruction. Mission owners must prepare for an eventual CSO off-boarding, and CSPs must support the capability in a timely manner.
Upon request by the Mission Owner, the CSP will make all Mission Owner data stored in a CSO available for electronic transfer out of the CSP environment in a standard, non-proprietary format. CSPs must also make available all audit logs relevant to the Mission Owner’s use of the CSO. This includes all audit content specified by the AU-2 security control for the time period specified by AU-11. See Section 5.2.3, DoD Data Ownership and CSP Use of DoD Data for additional information. CSOs that enable Mission Owners to download their data on demand and delete or request destruction of data may not require specific CSP action to fulfill this requirement. Each Mission Owner may also request different means of data transfer (for example, as called out in the SLA), at its discretion.
Cryptographic Erase, described in Section 5.11.1, Cryptographic Erase, provides a high-assurance way of ensuring data at rest can no longer be read. Upon successful transfer of data out of a CSO, mission owners with data that is encrypted at rest must cryptographically erase all such mission data and take action to ensure that no data remains in the CSO in an unencrypted state. All backups maintained in the CSO’s infrastructure, from which the Mission owner is departing, must also be cryptographically erased. Mission owners should also request that all mission data be deleted or made logically inaccessible as per normal CSP procedure for departing customers. Upon verification of successful Mission Owner transfer of data, CSPs must immediately delete or otherwise make all Mission Owner data irretrievable. CSPs remain responsible for sanitizing or destroying all storage devices that held DoD data at the hardware’s end-of-life, even after off-boarding is complete IAW Section 5.9, Reuse and Disposal of Storage Media and Hardware.
DoD Mission Owners using non-DoD service offerings must be capable of migrating their data at any time. This means that mission owners must have the ability to receive their data from a cloud service on short notice. This capability can be supported in the form of available local storage infrastructure, or a cloud service offered by a different CSP capable of accepting data in a short time frame. This is to ensure that mission owners can quickly retrieve their data in case of a sudden shutdown of a CSO. (e.g., A CSP declares bankruptcy and plans to shut down services). This concern is also mitigated by the mission owner’s use of effective backup procedures as described in Section 5.12, Backup.
Corresponding Security Controls: DM-2, MP-6
CSPs will ensure that no residual DoD data exists on all storage devices decommissioned and disposed of, reused in an environment not governed by an agreement between the CSP and DoD, or transferred to a third party; as required by the FedRAMP selected security control MP-6.
Impact Levels 4/5: CSPs may not reuse or dispose of storage hardware until all DoD data has been successfully removed. The CSP will minimally ensure this by “Purging” all data on devices prior to decommissioning, disposal, reuse, or transfer, in accordance with NIST SP 800-88, Revision 1, Guidelines for Media Sanitization[81]. Devices that are unable to be cleared or purged must be physically destroyed, as defined in NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1. When there is any doubt to the success of the cleared or purged process, the storage device must be destroyed in accordance with NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1.
Impact Level 6: On-premises CSP’s may not dispose of or reuse storage hardware at a lower sensitivity or classification level but will ensure classified data is irretrievable from decommissioned devices by sanitizing them in accordance with NSA/CSS Storage Device Declassification Manual 9-12[82].
Corresponding Security Controls: DM-2, MP-6
This section of the CC SRG provides guidance on the various architectural considerations related to DoD’s use of DoD and commercial cloud services in the following areas:
DoD’s usage of commercial cloud services means that the DoD joins an ecosystem of Internet connected CSPs/CSOs. While DoD leverages Internet connected CSOs for the dissemination or processing of public information (Level 2), DoD also leverages private connectivity to the same CSOs for the protection of sensitive DoD information i.e., CUI at Levels 4 and 5. Additionally, DoD mission partners that are not native to NIPRNet will need to leverage Internet connected CSOs for their Level 4/5 processing (possibly under waiver) or will need to implement their own private connectivity.
Figure 10 – NIPRNet/Commercial/Federal Cloud Ecosystem shows the overall architecture of the cloud ecosystem into which NIPRNet is connected that consists of Off-Premises, Non-DoD-Private Commercial and Federal CSPs/CSOs. Any of the CSP/CSO clouds in the diagram may be a Commercial CSO or a CSO operated/offered by a Non-DoD Federal Agency. The point of this diagram is to make it blatantly clear that every Non-DoD-Private Commercial and/or Federal CSP/CSO is accessible from the Internet even if the CSO has a Level 4/5 PA and is connected to NIPRNet via private connections. It also demonstrates that these CSPs/CSOs support non-DoD customers. This figure focuses on NIPRNet connectivity to Commercial/Federal CSOs for the majority of mission use cases. It does not show all possible situations or use cases. Additional drawings may be provided in future releases of the CC SRG.
Figure 10 – NIPRNet/Commercial/Federal Cloud Ecosystem
The concept of and requirement for a Cloud Access Point (CAP) is derived from NSA and DoD Cybersecurity team guidance as presented in the DoD CIO’s DoD Cloud Way Forward, v1, 23 July 2014[83] document which provides for a Security Stack/CAP for both off-premises and on-premises commercially owned and operated CSOs. This concept was made policy by the 15 December 2014 DoD CIO memo regarding Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services, which states “Commercial cloud services used for Sensitive Data must be connected to customers through a Cloud Access Point (CAP).” This CC SRG expands upon the concept and adjusts the requirement for on-premises vs off-premises CSOs.
For the purpose of this SRG, Sensitive Data as referenced in the DoD CIO memo means CUI as handled at Levels 4/5 or classified information up to SECRET as handled at Level 6.
In general, a CAP is required to mitigate risks to the DISN (or other DoD network) posed by connecting commercial CSOs to it except under certain restrictions. A CAP is a system of network boundary protection and monitoring devices (e.g., firewall, IPS, IDS, proxy, etc.), otherwise known as a Cybersecurity or IA stack, through which CSP infrastructure and networks will connect to the network the CAP protects. This CC SRG addresses the DISN as the protected network which includes NIPRNet, SIPRNet, or other DISN based mission partner/Community of Interest (COI) networks.
The primary purpose of a CAP is the protection of the DISN (or other network) from, and detection of, unauthorized network access from the CSP’s infrastructure, CSO management plane, CSP’s corporate networks, CSP’s connections to the Internet, and unauthorized traffic generated from compromised Mission Owner systems/applications and virtual networks. The secondary purpose is the protection of the DoDIN (i.e., DoD information) in general by facilitating protected connections for network users to access Level 4/5 or 6 Mission Owner systems/applications instantiated on IaaS/PaaS, or using SaaS, and the information stored and processed therein, without exposing such traffic to the Internet. These purposes also apply to any CAP on any Mission Partner or COI network for the protection of those networks and the sensitive information they contain.
NOTICE: a CAP does not protect the application or the network enclave (physical or virtual) in which it resides. Each Mission Owner having control over what is built in the application’s virtual environment in I/PaaS, must provide for the protection of their application and virtual network enclave. CSOs such as P/SaaS where the Mission Owner does not have control over what is built in the P/IaaS application’s environment, the CSP is responsible for the protection of the application and the network enclave (physical or virtual) in which the application resides.
CAP architecture will change depending on whether the CSO infrastructure is on-premises or off-premises and the services transiting it. The concepts of Internal CAPs (ICAPs) for on-premises CSOs and Boundary CAPs (BCAPs) for off-premises CSOs are detailed below with a focus on how these are implemented to protect the DISN. Some CAPs will leverage existing infrastructure and some will be a new capability. CAP architecture may also change depending on the DoDIN network, or COI network it is protecting.
The basic capabilities that any CAP must provide in support of DoDIN Cyber Defenses are as follows:
NOTE: All of the above capabilities must provide feeds to the DoDIN boundary Cyber Defense capabilities such that anomalies can be detected and correlated with other anomalies on the network and ISs.
The remainder of this section will define the CAP requirements for DISN connected CSOs. These concepts can also be applied to other networks that do not use DISN Transport and are not behind the DISN IAPs.
Corresponding Security Controls: SC-7, SC-7(3), SC-7(4)
[83] DoD Cloud Way Forward: http://iase.disa.mil/Documents/dodciomemo_w-attachment_cloudwayforwardreport-20141106.pdf
A Boundary CAP (BCAP) is required to connect off-premises commercially owned and operated CSOs to the DISN (or other network). A BCAP will interconnect the network it protects with multiple CSP networks that offer private connectivity services. A BCAP does not provide direct Internet access to or from CSP CSOs, the mission applications built upon them, or network users
In general, a BCAP will provide the following protections:
A DISN BCAP is a DISN boundary intended to protect the enclave and information system which is the DISN and its other interconnected enclaves. The DISN is on the inside or protected side of the boundary. Likewise Mission Owner systems/applications implemented in I/PaaS or using P/SaaS are considered enclaves which require enclave boundary and DMZ protections. These are on the outside or unprotected side of the boundary. As such Mission Owner systems/applications implemented in I/PaaS as well as P/SaaS applications must protect themselves. This must be accomplished as close to the application enclave boundary as possible. Multiple Mission Owner systems/applications implemented in IaaS and PaaS where the Mission Owner has control over the VMs and environment can be protected by a Virtual Datacenter Security Stack (VDSS) and managed through a Virtual Datacenter Management Suite (VDMS) as described in the Secure Cloud Computing Architecture (SCCA) Functional Requirements Document (FRD)[84] (currently in Draft). Mission Owner use of PaaS or SaaS where the Mission Owner does not have control over the VMs and environment, must rely on the protections afforded by the CSP for their CSO or leverage an alternative solution (e.g., a third party CSO such as a Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) service having minimally a FedRAMP Moderate PA).
The implementation of the DISN BCAP capability for NIPRNet is ultimately a DISA responsibility as part of its mission to protect the DoDIN and DoD information. Per the 15 December 2014 DoD CIO memo, initial capability may temporarily be provided by DoD Components other than DISA, as approved by the DoD CIO, while the intent is for DISA to implement DISN BCAPs as an enterprise wide DISN service. This requirement is applicable to Boundary CAPs to the NIPRNet, not ICAPs. Specific CAP architectural requirements are beyond the scope of this SRG and will be published separately in the SCCA FR document.
The NIPRNet BCAP must be implemented as a system of hyper redundant, dual homed, geographically disbursed, high availability, high capacity cybersecurity stacks and meet-me points so that the BCAP system can handle the throughput required to handle all the applications expected to migrate to commercial Cloud. It provides connectivity between DISN users and multiple off-premises Level 4/5 CSOs. It also facilitates user connections to these CSOs from the Internet through the DISN Internet Access Points (IAPs) for Internet Facing Applications (IFA).
Impact Level 2: The NIPRNet BCAP is not used since off-premises CSP infrastructure having a Level 2 PA is directly connected to the Internet, all traffic to and from a Level 2 CSO serving Level 2 missions and their mission virtual networks will connect via the Internet. NIPRNet users access these CSOs and applications via the DISN Internet Access Points (IAPs) while Internet based users access them directly. Mission Owner applications implemented in I/PaaS CSOs must provide their own enclave boundary and DMZ application protections or leveraging an enterprise level application protection service (i.e., the Virtual Datacenter Security Stack (VDSS) / Virtual Datacenter Management Suite (VDMS) portion of the SCCA) instantiated within the same CSO. VDSS/VDMS may be provided by DISA, a DoD Component, or the Mission Owner. SaaS CSOs must provide their own enclave boundary and DMZ application protections to which a Mission Owner may layer on additional protection services (e.g., CASB). See sections 5.10.2.2, User/Data Plane Connectivity and 5.10.2.3, Management Plane Connectivity for additional details. Alternately a Level 2 IFAs may be implemented in a Level 4/5 CSO thus will connect through the NIPRNet BCAP. See Impact Levels 4/5 below.
NOTE: All IFAs providing access to publicly released information along with some IFAs providing access to low confidentiality private information should migrate to a Level 2 CSO rather than a Level 4 or 5 CSO. This will not only reduce the load and required capacity on the BCAP infrastructure but will also permit the DoD Components and Department to realize the greatest cost savings and support other mandated cost saving initiatives.
Impact Levels 4/5: All DoD traffic from NIPRNet (or other COI network) to and from off-premises CSP infrastructure serving Level 4 and level 5 missions and the mission virtual networks must traverse one or more NIPRNet BCAPs. No direct traffic is permitted to/from the Internet except via the NIPRNet IAPs and DoD DMZ capabilities provided by the Mission Owner, a DoD Component, or DISA. The BCAP or an attached meet-me point provides for direct physical or logical connectivity between the DISN and CSP’s network through which the CSO is accessed. Physical connectivity is established using a direct fiber optic connection between the DISN meet-me point router and a nearby CSP network router. Logical connectivity is established using dedicated long haul circuits, Private IP VPN services, a FedRAMP authorized multi-CSP/customer interconnection service, or a point to point IPsec VPN. These connections can also support the transport of IPsec VPNs connections originating within the CSP’s network infrastructure and/or Mission Owner’s virtual networks. This includes the production plane for non-privileged user access and the management plane for privileged user access and deployed IA/Cybersecurity Defense tool connectivity to internal DISN native Cybersecurity Defense monitoring systems. See Sections 5.10.2.2, User/Data Plane Connectivity and 5.10.2.3, Management Plane Connectivity for additional details. High availability Mission Owner systems and their supporting CSP network infrastructure must connect through two or more NIPRNet BCAPs.
The NIPRNet BCAP will also provide the following functions:
NOTICE: Level 5 CSP/CSO infrastructure/applications and DoD Mission Owner applications must be designed such that there is no dependence on Internet based resources such that traffic must traverse the IAPs to/from the Internet to make the CSO function. As such the CSO and DoD Mission Owner applications connected through a BCAP must be able to fully function; serving NIPRNet connected users in the event DoD decides to cut off NIPRNet access to the Internet. Of course in this situation, Internet connected users will not be able to utilize the Level 5 service/resource. Mission Owners that need this restriction for Level 4 CSOs must add the requirement to their SLA/contract.
A NIPRNet BCAP Meet-Me Point is a DISN Point-of-Presence (PoP) located in a carrier agnostic commercial network interconnection facility or commercial carrier’s collocation facility. This PoP minimally consists of a high capacity router, but may include DISN boundary protection capabilities that constitute all or part of the BCAP Cybersecurity stack.
The purpose of the BCAP Meet-Me Point is to facilitate the interconnection of the DISN BCAP with multiple CSP networks. Multiple BCAP Meet-Me Points will be implemented to facilitate redundant and reliable interconnection with CSP networks. BCAP Meet-Me Points will be geographically disbursed in US jurisdiction to facilitate connection availability and to reduce latency between the users and CSO. The BCAP and/or Meet-Me Points may also support interconnection with commercial carrier grade services that provide cloud customer network access/connection to multiple CSP networks (e.g., Equinix Cloud Exchange, AT&T NetBond, and Verizon Secure Cloud Interconnect).
Since the Meet-Me Point is a DISN PoP located in a commercial facility, the following requirements apply. A BCAP Meet-Me Point / DISN PoP located in a commercial facility:
Must be assessed and authorized under DoD RMF as part of the BCAP and DISN accreditation due to its role as an extension of the DISN authorization boundary.
To support BCAP connections between DoD and an off-premises Level 4/5 CSP, the CSP must offer a private connection service to the CSO that does not traverse the Internet. The CSP’s network must include a PoP in a carrier agnostic commercial network interconnection facility or commercial carrier’s collocation facility where an existing DISN PoP / BCAP Meet-Me-Point is located. A physical connection within the facility will be installed between the two PoPs providing a direct private connection between the DISN BCAP and the CSP’s network over which the CSO will be accessed along with supporting services. In the event reliability is a requirement for access to the CSO the interconnections must be implemented minimally in two geographically disbursed network interconnection/ collocation facilities.
As a condition for a DoD Level 4 or Level 5 PA the CSP must offer the private connection service for access to the CSO. DoD recognizes that the CSP may not have one or more PoPs collocated with a DISN BCAP Meet-Me-Point. As such the existence of such a CSP network PoP will not be required for obtaining the PA but a willingness to install such a PoP or to negotiate a mutually agreeable location for collocating the DISN and CSP PoPs, or use an approved intermediary cloud interconnection service (having its own DoD PA). Associated costs will be negotiated between the Mission Owner and CSP. If a new DISN Meet-Me PoP is required; DISA must be included in such negotiations. Notice of this potential situation must be provided during the PA assessment phase. Such negotiations will occur in the planning stage for the BCAP connection based on a contract between the CSP and their first Mission Owner. Mission Owners may also stipulate that the CSP must have/install a PoP collocated with one or more DISN meet-me-points.
Section 5.10, Architecture and Figure 10 – NIPRNet/Commercial/Federal Cloud Ecosystem provides a depiction of the reality that CSPs/CSOs having a Level 4/5 PA that are connected to the NIPRNet via a NIPRNet BCAP are also connected to the Internet.
As a condition for a DoD Level 4 or Level 5 PA the CSP, when the CSP’s network which supports a DoD contracted CSO is privately connected to the NIPRNet via a NIPRNet BCAP (or other DoD network via their BCAP) and the Internet, the CSP must provide evidence that the CSP’s network or the CSO cannot provide a path from the Internet to the NIPRNet (or other network), thus creating a back door to a Dod network. An additional or associated consideration is the robustness of the CSP’s required boundary protection (defense-in-depth security / protective measures) implemented between the Internet and the CSO for its protection from Internet based threats. This protection is expected to be different depending on whether the CSO is I/PaaS or P/SaaS and whether the Mission Owner has control over their portion of the CSO. See section 5.10.3, CSP Service Architecture, and section 5.10.6, Mission Owner System/Application Requirements using IaaS/PaaS for details.
An ICAP is a DISN boundary consisting of a Cybersecurity stack which protects the DISN (or other network) or the datacenter network to which the CSO is connected (inside / protected side of the boundary) from, and provides detection of, unauthorized network access from the CSP’s infrastructure (outside / unprotected side of the boundary), externally connected CSO management plane, CSP corporate networks, CSP connections to the Internet, and from compromised Mission Owner systems/applications and virtual networks. Typically one ICAP is required for each physical CSO infrastructure instance.
Impact Levels 2/4/5: Internal CAPs (ICAPs) will be implemented for on-premises commercially owned and operated CSO connectivity to the DISN, if the CSO management plane has connectivity to external networks that bypasses native NIPRNet enclave and external boundary protections. As such all NIPRNet (or other unclassified COI network) production traffic to and from on-premises commercially owned and operated CSP infrastructure serving Level 2, 4, and 5 missions and the mission virtual networks must traverse an ICAP.
An ICAP is required to mitigate vulnerabilities and risks associated with implementing a commercial CSP’s CSO infrastructure on-premises (i.e., located inside the B/C/P/S physical or virtual “fence-line.”) when, as expected, that infrastructure is managed by the CSP from their off-premises corporate CSO management centers using non-DoD controlled workstations and infrastructure which will most likely have some connectivity to the CSP's corporate network and/or the Internet. The connection between the CSO management centers and the on-premises CSO’s management plane is expected to traverse an IPSEC tunnel across NIPRNet, its IAPs, and Internet OR traverse a dedicated “side-door” connection using a dedicated circuit, a commercial carrier's Private IP VPN service, or restricted Internet Service Provider (ISP) connection. ISP connections, across which the CSP must VPN, must not provide inbound or outbound access to/from CSO management plane to/from the open Internet. This requirement also applies if the CSO management plane is locally dedicated to the CSO and managed on-premises, but with an external connection to the CSP’s corporate network, or similar.
The ICAP will be configured to pass authorized production traffic (i.e., required Protocols and Services on their approved IP Ports) for those mission applications using the CSO while blocking all access to DISN or the datacenter network to which the CSO is connected from the CSO management plane.
The architecture of ICAPs may vary and will be developed based upon the location of the CSO infrastructure on the BCPS, existing infrastructure, and other factors. An ICAP minimally consists of firewall and IDS functions but may leverage existing capabilities such as the Cybersecurity Stack protecting a DoD Data center (today) (e.g., DECC), JIE Core Data Center (CDC) (future), or may be part of a Joint Regional Security Stack (JRSS). On the other hand, an ICAP may have special capabilities to support specific missions, CSP types (commercial or DoD), or specific cloud services. Since the CSP infrastructure and ICAP are both on-premises directly connected to the NIPRNet or indirectly via a DoD data center network, the full suite of BCAP boundary protections are not needed.
When using the Cybersecurity Stack protecting a DoD Data center today (e.g., DECC) or JIE Core Data Center (CDC) in the future as an ICAP, the CSO must be connected in such a manner that both the DISN and datacenter network are protected from the CSO management plane.
ICAP implementation and the connection of on-premises CSP infrastructure to the NIPRNet will follow normal NIPRNet connection approval guidance and requirements as is the case with any NIPRNet enclave or application infrastructure in a DoD data center.
An ICAP is not required in the event the CSO is managed under the following conditions:
OR
Additionally:
In accordance with CNSS architectural recommendations for the National Secret Fabric, DoD SECRET enclaves and virtual networks instantiated in DoD on-premises Impact level 6 CSOs will be considered as an enclave within the DoD provider network, (i.e., the SIPRNet).
Since DoD on/off-premises Impact level 6 CSOs and their supporting infrastructure, to include management network(s) are required to be one or more closed SIPRNet enclaves, they can be considered to be on-premises for the purposes of this CC SRG due to the concept of extending the virtual “fence-line” or SIPRNet boundary around such DoD enclaves. As such these enclaves must comply with all SIPRNet connection approval requirements which include the appropriate enclave boundary protections and Cyberspace Defense requirements. The DoD Mission Owner systems/applications instantiated in these Impact Level 6 CSO enclaves will be assessed and authorized the same way any other DoD SIPRNet enclave connection
As such no SIPRNet BCAP is required for the connection of these DoD enclaves (physical or virtual) to the SIPRNet.
Furthermore SIPRNet (or other classified COI network) traffic to and from on-premises commercially owned and operated CSP infrastructure serving Level 6 missions and the mission virtual networks must traverse an ICAP only if the CSO is managed off-premises (not typical). The ICAP will be configured to pass authorized production traffic for those mission applications using the CSO while blocking all access to DISN or the datacenter network to which the CSO is connected from the CSO management plane. This not the case when the on-premises CSO is managed from an on-premises location(s) since the CSO and management locations would be considered one or more SIPRNet enclaves and protected as such.
For the purpose of this CC SRG, mission partner refers to DoD Components, Federal agencies, and potentially their contractors operating networks that include DoD and other entities. This section does not include or refer to war fighting coalition partners or the networks they use or are implemented for them. Coalition networks may be addressed in a future release of the CC SRG, however the use of cloud computing on these networks should be implemented in the same manner as this CC SRG provides for NIPRNet or SIPRNet to include BCAPs and ICAPs depending on the classification level of the network.
Mission Partner Environments (MPEs) include mission partners that utilize networks other than NIPRNet or SIPRNet (e.g., DREN) and mission partner Communities of Interest (COI) that utilize network overlays and extensions that leverage (e.g., ride on or overlay) the NIPRNet or SIPRNet (e.g., MilCOI). Additionally, DoD Component mission partners (e.g., commissaries; exchanges; Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) organizations; Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) organizations; educational entities (e.g., National Defense University (NDU)) typically operate networks that may not be part of the DISN (i.e., do not use DISN transport or NIPRNet services such as Internet access via the NIPRNet IAPs) or .mil domain. These mission partners and their networks may be in the .gov/.org/.com/.edu domains and may be directly accessed from the Internet through a boundary similar to a DoD IAP which they operate and authorize or a contracted third party DHS/GSA Trusted Internet Connection (TIC). Such other networks and COI may interconnect with NIPRNet or SIPRNet and may interconnect with other DoD and Non-DoD mission partner/Agency networks.
While the CAP concepts presented here are applicable to non-native DISN networks operated by other DoD Components (e.g., the .edu community which supports a diverse non-DoD user base) there may be other methods of protecting these networks from risks associated with the use of commercial Cloud. The use of a Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) service having minimally a FedRAMP Moderate PA might be one such alternative for non-DISN networks.
MPEs that utilize network(s) other than NIPRNet or SIPRNet (e.g., DRSN), will need to implement BCAPs or ICAPs for those network(s) that provide equivalent protections to those defined in the SCCA Functional Requirements Document (FRD)[85] when connecting CSP infrastructure to their networks. MPEs implemented as a COI overlay on NIPRNet or SIPRNet can utilize the DISA-provided CAPs to fulfill the CAP requirement or may provide their own CAP capability IAW the SCCA. Mission Partners that are external to NIPRNet or SIPRNet, however, are responsible for providing an equivalent capability to protect DoD data and MPEs from vulnerabilities associated with a connection to an external service provider.
All MPE CAP instantiations must be approved by the DoD CIO.
NOTE: MPE network connectivity/access to off-premises commercial DoD Level 4/5 CSOs will not traverse a NIPRNet BCAP or a NIPRNet Federated Gateway (NFG) when connecting to/accessing MPE applications instantiated in such a CSO.
Mission Partner Environments that require access to NIPRNet services are required to connect to NIPRNet via the Internet, IAPs, and DoD DMZ or via a NIPRNet Federated Gateway (NFG) IAW JFHQ-DODIN TASKORD 16-0103 Establishment of the NIPRNET Federated Gateway (NFG). NIPRNet services are applications operated by DoD Components for the purpose of serving NIPRNet users. Some of these NIPRNet focused applications might be implemented in a CSO. Such a CSO might be commercial off-premises CSO, a DoD private off-premises CSO, or a DoD private on-premises CSO. Mission Partners that desire or require access to such applications must coordinate with the Mission Owner of the application for permission to access it and to determine the best access method. There are three approved methods of accessing such an application as follows:
Impact Levels 4/5: Connection of a mission system to the DISN via an ICAP or BCAP will be approved and recorded by the DISA Connection Approval Office in accordance with normal connection approval procedures. This requires all Mission Owners to register all Cloud based applications, their CSP/CSO, and connection method in the DISA Systems/Network Approval Process (SNAP)[86] database Cloud Module. Initial connections (physical or virtual) to a CSP’s network will occur during onboarding of the CSP’s first Mission Owner customer. Additional connections will be made or capacity will be scaled as more Mission Owners use the given CSP. Specific processes and procedures regarding connection approval and Mission Owner connections via a BCAP are addressed in the DISA Cloud Connection Process Guide (CCPG)[87] which will ultimately be merged with the overall DISN Connection Process Guide (CPG)[88].
Impact Level 6: The DoD Mission Owner systems/applications instantiated in these Impact Level 6 CSO enclaves will be assessed and authorized the same way any other DoD SIPRNet enclave connection IAW the DISA CPG. Approval for connection to the SIPRNet will be processed through the DISA classified connection approval process like any other SIPRNet enclave.
[86] SNAP: https://snap.dod.mil/gcap/home.do
Connection Approval: http://www.disa.mil/Network-Services/Enterprise-Connections/Connection-Approval
[87] CCPG: http://disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/DISN-Connect/References/CCPG.pdf
[88] CPG: http://disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/DISN-Connect/References/DISN_CPG.pdf
A plane, in a networking context, is one of three integral components of network architectures. These three elements – the data synchronization/control or network plane, the user/data or production plane, and the management plane – can be thought of as different areas of operations. Each plane carries a different type of traffic and is conceptually an overlay network on top of the network plane.
The network or data sync/control plane carries signaling traffic and data replication between servers/data centers. Network control packets originate from or are destined for a network transport device (virtual or physical). The network plane in general is subject to network related DoD SRGs and STIGs. This CC SRG does not contain additional requirements related to network plane connections to the cloud computing infrastructure.
The user/data plane (also known as the forwarding plane, carrier plane, or bearer plane) carries the network user traffic. Table 5 details the DoD user/data plane connectivity by impact level for DoD on-premises and off-premises CSOs.
NOTE: While this table does apply to non-DoD Federal Government tenants using a DoD on-premises CSO, it does not apply to non-DoD Federal Government tenants using an off-premises CSO that is a Federal Government community cloud having DoD tenants.
Table 5 - User/Data Plane Connectivity
Impact Level |
Off-Premises Non-DoD CSP Service Offering Infrastructure |
On-Premises DoD and Non-DoD CSP Service Offering Infrastructure |
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 4 And 5 |
|
|
Level 6 |
|
|
[89] DoD DMZ STIG: https://powhatan.iiie.disa.mil/stigs/downloads/zip/fouo_dod_internet-niprnet_dmz_technology_v3r3_stig.zip (CAC/PKI required)
[90] Commercial Solutions for Classified Programs: https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/csfc_program/index.shtml
The management plane carries network/server/system privileged user (administrator) traffic along with maintenance and monitoring traffic.
Table 6 details the management plane connectivity by impact level for Mission Owner’s systems/applications and CSP’s CSOs. The Mission Owner management plane includes connectivity for DoD personnel or DoD contractors managing Mission Owner systems (i.e., virtual machines and networks) instantiated on IaaS/PaaS as well as for DoD personnel or DoD contractors access to / use of CSP service ordering/management portals for all service offering types (IaaS/PaaS/SaaS). The CSP management plane includes connectivity for CSP personnel managing the CSP’s service offering infrastructure.
All encryption identified, except as stated otherwise, must be accomplished using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography modules operated in FIPS mode.
IAW standard practice and security requirements, management interfaces on VMs and protective appliances (virtual or physical) located in a Mission Owner’s virtual network, must not be exposed to direct access from the production network (e.g., Internet or NIPRNet/SIPRNet). To the extent possible, CSP service ordering/management portals through which VMs and virtual networks are instantiated and configured must also be protected from direct access from the production network to prevent compromise of mission systems and DoD information.
All management transactions must be audited.
Table 6 - Management Plane Connectivity
Impact Level |
Mission Owner Management Plane |
CSP Management Plane |
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 4 And 5 |
|
|
Level 6 |
|
|
DoD uses the concept of defense-in-depth when protecting its networks and data/information. This includes, but is not limited to, hardening host OSs and applications, implementing host firewalls and intrusion detection, strong access control, robust auditing of events, while protecting the networks with application layer firewalls, proxies, web content filters, email gateways, intrusion detection / prevention, and a DMZ /gateway architecture, along with robust network traffic monitoring. The concept must not be lost when moving Mission Owners systems/applications and their data/information to the commercial cloud. As such, if virtualization is used, the above measures must also be used to protect the virtual environment along with the use of hypervisor based firewall/filtering/routing mechanisms or virtual security appliances.
This section details the defense-in-depth security concepts and requirements that both CSPs and Mission Owners must implement to protect DoD data/information and mission systems/applications. DoD recognizes that there are innovative approaches that can be implemented in the virtual environment that may replace some of the defense-in-depth mitigations that have been developed over the years for physical networks and servers. DoD looks forward to evaluating equivalent alternative measures which will be assessed by DISA on a case by case basis.
Mission Owner use of CSP’s SaaS offerings are reliant on the defense-in-depth measures implemented by the CSP for the protection of the service application and the infrastructure that supports it. This includes the protection of all sensitive information stored and processed in the CSP infrastructure. In other words, the Mission Owner relies on the CSP and the security posture of its SaaS offering for the protection of DoD information. During the ATO assessment process for SaaS offerings, defense-in-depth security / protective measures must be assessed for adequacy and potential risk acceptance by DoD. This may be in addition to assessing security controls. The following guidance is reflected in the DoD DMZ STIG and Application Security and Development STIG along with other operating system (OS) and application specific STIGs, but is highlighted here to emphasize instances where an authoritative reference (e.g., product specific STIG) is not available.
The defense-in-depth security / protective measures to be established by the CSP for SaaS are, but are not limited, to the following:
NOTE: Equivalencies to the vulnerability mitigations provided in DoD SRGs and STIGS may be viable and acceptable but must be approved by the DISA AO.
NOTE: IAVM messages include IA Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA), IA Vulnerability Bulletins (IAVB), and Technical Advisories (TA). For the remainder of this SRG, the term IAVMs will be used to refer to all IAVM message types.
Mission Owners build systems and applications on virtualized infrastructure provided by the CSO under IaaS/PaaS. There must be a clear delineation of responsibility for security between the CSP and the Mission Owner, which depends on how the CSP presents the security features it supports in the CSO. Under IaaS the Mission Owner is fully responsible for securing the guest operating systems and applications that they build; the CSP will be responsible for securing the virtualization OS (i.e., hypervisor) and supporting infrastructure. Under PaaS, the Mission Owner is fully responsible for securing the guest operating systems and the platform applications and applications that they build. Depending upon how the CSP CSO presents the security features it supports in the CSO, the delineation of responsibility may partially shift from the Mission Owner to the CSP with respect to the guest operating systems and the platform applications. The CSP might take responsibility for securing these areas of a PaaS CSO as part of the core service or as an add-on component.
For the purpose of the remainder of Section 5 of this SRG, IaaS and PaaS offerings are generally treated the same with the responsibility of securing the OS and platform applications being that of the Mission Owner. Mission Owners must assess inherited mitigations that the CSP provides to determine that defense-in-depth security / protective requirements are fully met.
CSP IaaS and PaaS offerings must support the defense-in-depth security / protective measures that the Mission Owner must implement to secure the systems and applications that they build on the service offering. These measures are defined in Section 5.10.6, Mission Owner System/Application Requirements using IaaS/PaaS.
As a best business practice, CSPs plan for Disaster Recovery (DR) and Continuity of Operations (COOP) and implement their infrastructures to support it. This typically includes geographically separate facilities/data centers. Furthermore, FedRAMP assess several C/CE related to Contingency Planning (i.e., DR and COOP).
Data replication between CSP geographically separate facilities/data centers is typically required for Disaster Recovery (DR) and/or Continuity of Operations (COOP) which includes backup.
All Data replication must traverse a CSP’s private internal network (physical or virtual) from CSP offering site/location to the DR/COOP facility and protect the data in transit. If this network traverses the Internet, the network connection must be encrypted end-to-end in an IPsec tunnel implemented using FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography. Separation requirements implemented in the CSO between DoD data and non-DoD data at the CSP offering site/location must be replicated at the DR/COOP facility. Such separation is not specifically required in transit unless its implementation is required to support separation at the endpoint facilities.
NOTE: For Level 4/5 CSOs such transfers do not route through the DISN BCAP unless the DR/COOP facility is on-premises or is another CSP’s CSO.
Related Controls: CP-6, CP-7, CP-9
DoDI 8410.01, Internet Domain Name Use and Approval, 4 December, 2015[92] provides DoD policy on the use of Top Level Domain (TLD) names by DoD organizations, their ISs and networks.
DoDI 8410.01 requires DoD to conduct DoD public and private Internet-based communications (e.g., electronic mail and Web operations) under the TLD established for the DoD—the .mil TLD”. Exceptions are provided for some DoD organizations which may use the .gov, .edu, and .com domains if necessary and approved by the Mission Owner’s CIO. This means that the end user accessing a DoD web site or other resource using a URL will see “.mil” at the end of the URL (e.g., name.mil is required vs name.com).
DoDI 8410.01 additionally requires DoD to only use the .mil domain to provide names for IP addresses allocated or assigned to the DoD by the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and specifically states that these IPs are to be assigned in accordance with the DoD NIC Registry Protocol 9802. DoD NIC Registry Protocol 9802 then goes on to state that
a. ... IP address space is assigned by the DoD NIC for use on a DoD common user data network and may not be used to obtain access to the Internet via a commercial Internet Service Provider.
And
b. IP address space will only be used on the common user network to which it is registered. IP address space or subnets of IP address space will not be shared amongst different common user networks. For example, IP address space assigned for SIPRNET use must be used only on the SIPRNET while IP address space assigned for NIPRNET use must be used only on the NIPRNET.
Interpret this to mean that DoD IP addresses are to only be used on DoD systems located on registered DoD networks.
Furthermore it requires that a .mil URL not redirect to non-.mil domain named hosts (e.g., name.mil will not redirect to name.com) with the only exception being for an approved and accredited service that provides redirection not readily apparent to the end user (e.g., use of a content delivery service or cloud service). This exception permits the use of a Canonical Name (CNAME) in the system’s DNS record within the DoD DNS servers that redirects the URL to the CSP assigned URL associated with the commercial IP address. As such the end user must not be made readily aware of the redirection.
NOTE: The example of electronic mail (email) in DoDI 8410.01 paragraph 3.a and previously in this section does not negate the use of an external commercial cloud email service by DoD Components providing the URL to access the service ends in “.mil” and the redirection is not readily apparent to the user.
NOTE: IP addresses assigned by ARIN to the DoD NIC which are then assigned to DoD Components for their networks and information systems (e.g., NIPRNet addresses) are unique publicly routable addresses. Only within DoD network enclaves are “private” (non-publicly routable) RFC 1918 addresses permitted/used.
Off-Premises Impact Level 2 IaaS/PaaS/SaaS:
Due to off-premises Impact Level 2 IaaS/PaaS/SaaS CSOs being directly accessed from the Internet, DoD Mission Owner systems/applications using the .mil domain that are implemented in an Impact Level 2 IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS CSO will be addressed using public IP addresses assigned and managed by the CSP. This also applies to DoD Mission Owner systems/applications approved to use non-.mil domain names. In this case the DoD DNS server will use a CNAME for a .mil URL to point to the commercial URL and its IP address.
NOTE: The use of “private” RFC 1918 IP addresses internal to the virtual network enclave with commercial addresses on the Internet facing interfaces is acceptable and is recommended minimally for topology hiding.
Off-Premises Impact Level 4/5:
DoD IP addresses are assigned/managed by the DoD Network Information Center (NIC) and may be further managed and assigned to networks and ISs by DoD component NICs. In accordance with DoD policy NIPRNet, subtended Component enclave networks, and their internally connected endpoints are addressed using DoD NIPRNet IP addresses.
NOTE: The following is NOT applicable to DoD systems that are not connected to, or not part of, the NIPRNet and are already approved to use Non-DoD, Non-NIPRNet, IP addresses. There is no intent to force such DoD systems to become part of the NIPRNet.
Since, by default, Mission Owners systems/applications instantiated in IaaS and in some PaaS CSOs have full control over the IP addressing of their systems/applications instantiated in the CSO, and since they are connected to NIPRNet through a NIPRNet BCAP, DoD NIPRNet IP addresses will be used. This also applies to SaaS where the Mission Owner has control over the IP addressing used in their portion of the CSO. As such these systems/applications are within a network enclave that is considered an extension of the NIPRNet. The DoD NIC has set aside a range of NIPRNet IP addresses for CSOs connected to the NIPRNet BCAP. This requirement applies similarly to networks other than NIPRNet where a BCAP is required. In such cases IP addresses used on that network will be used.
NOTE: As with any DoD enclave, the use of “private” RFC 1918 IP addresses internal to the virtual network enclave with NIPRNet addresses on the NIPRNet/Internet facing interfaces connected via the BCAP is acceptable.
DoD’s objective requirement for all off-premises Level 4/5 CSP’s CSOs serving the DoD is for the CSO to offer a “bring your own” IP address capability for all customer facing interfaces so that DoD NIPRNet IP addresses may be used via the private connection and BCAP. In this case, customer facing interfaces includes general user interfaces and customer management interfaces including CSO customer service management/ordering portals. DoD does not want to be required to access such portals via the Internet except during initial setup of the CSO.
This IP addressing requirement does not include CSP systems instantiated within the CSO infrastructure that are not customer facing or directly accessible from the NIPRNet (or other mission partner network). Such internal systems and infrastructure may use CSP assigned and managed IP addresses.
Level 4/5 Commercial IP Addressing and Routing:
DoD recognizes that with some off-premises commercial SaaS and PaaS CSOs today, the Mission Owner may not have control over the IP addressing of the CSO as would be the case with a “bring your own” IP address capability and therefore, CSP managed commercial IP addresses must be used and interfaced with the NIPRNet via the BCAP. DoD’s preferred solution is for the CSP to provide a NAT or proxy between the CSO and NIPRNet BCAP so that NIPRNet need only route DoD IP addresses.
Waiver: Alternate solutions that require a CSO’s commercial IP addresses to be routed on the NIPRNet must be assessed and approved through a Non-DoD addressing risk assessment and waiver process which may affect the ability of the CSO to be awarded a DoD PA or may result in a PA with conditions. The CSP must work and coordinate with DISA to achieve such an alternate solution to minimize the operational and cybersecurity effects on the DISN/NIPRNet.
The following is a set of minimum constraints and requirements that will be considered for the Non-DoD addressing waiver/PA conditions and must be adhered to for ongoing operations:
Off-premises Impact Level 6:
All off-premises CSP’s Level 6 CSOs will be treated, designed, and addressed as an extension of the SIPRNet (i.e., a SIPRNet network enclave) or other SECRET mission partner network.
All Mission Owner systems/applications instantiated in IaaS/PaaS (i.e., VMs and virtual network device interfaces) and connected to SIPRNet will be addressed using SIPRNet IP addresses. This includes management plane systems and interfaces.
All off-premises CSP Level 6 SaaS and some PaaS service offerings connected to SIPRNet must utilize DoD assigned and managed SIPRNet IP addresses throughout. Alternate addressing will require a waiver.
On-premises Impact Level 2/4/5:
All on-premises Level 2/4/5 IaaS/PaaS/SaaS CSOs and Mission Owner systems/applications will be addressed using DoD NIPRNet IP addresses.
On-premises Impact Level 6:
All on-premises Level 6 IaaS/PaaS/SaaS CSOs and Mission Owner systems/applications will be addressed using DoD SIPRNet IP addresses.
DoD .mil DNS servers on NIPRNet (and .smil.mil DNS servers on SIPRNet) are authoritative for DoD IP addresses provided through the DoD NIC and subtended Component NICs. This means that the DoD .mil DNS servers resolve .mil URLs to their destination IP address. DoD .mil DNS servers on NIPRNet must also be used to host .mil URLs which cannot have a specific IP address associated with it. In this case, a CNAME is used in the DoD .mil DNS servers on NIPRNet to point to a commercial URL used by the CSO.
DoD .mil DNS servers on NIPRNet are protected using various security measures such as the DoD DNS proxies, the Enterprise Recursive service, and DNSSec. As such DoD DNS is protected from many DNS threats and DoD DNS and associated protective services must be used for DoD .mil URLs and address resolution as appropriate.
General Rule, All On-Premises and Off-Premises Impact Levels 2/4/5:
In general and IAW DoDI 8410.01 Mission Owner systems/applications using the .mil domain instantiated in an IaaS/PaaS/SaaS CSO where the Mission Owner has control over the IP addressing and is using DoD NIPRNet IP addresses, must host their .mil DNS records in the DoD .mil NIPRNet authoritative DNS servers, not public or commercial DNS servers. Therefore, such Mission Owners are not authorized to utilize DNS services offered by the CSP or any other non-DoD DNS provider unless otherwise approved to use another domain.
NOTE: Mission Owners using non-.mil URLs may utilize CSP managed or other commercial/public DNS servers (not the DoD DNS servers) for the domains in which they are authorized to operate.
The following exceptions to the general rule noted above apply:
Exception for Off-Premises Impact Level 2:
DoD Mission Owners using an off-Premises Impact Level 2 CSO which by default uses CSP managed commercial IP addresses and URLs must host their .mil DNS records in the DoD .mil NIPRNet DNS servers and use a CNAME to point to the commercial URL or IP address as appropriate. CSP DNS servers will be authoritative for commercial IP address resolution.
Exception for Off-Premises Impact Levels 4/5 SaaS and some PaaS:
DoD Mission Owners using an off-premises Impact Level 4/5 CSO (IaaS and some PaaS) where the Mission Owner does not have control over the IP addressing and therefore is dependent upon CSP managed commercial IP addresses and URLs must host their .mil DNS records in the DoD .mil NIPRNet DNS servers and use a CNAME to point to the commercial URL for IP address resolution as appropriate. CSP DNS servers will be authoritative for their commercial IP address resolution.
In the event their use is required CSP DNS services including URL redirection and dynamic DNS solutions along with implemented DNS protections will be assessed and approved as appropriate for the CSO’s DoD PA. CSP DNS services must be protected using a DNS proxy and must support DNSSec. The DoD PA will also include a risk assessment of the CSP’s DNS management architecture or outsourced services.
All On-Premises and Off-Premises Impact Level 6:
DoD Mission Owners using an on-premises or off-premises Impact Level 6 CSO will use smil.mil URLs whose DNS records will be hosted on the DoD authoritative DNS servers on the SIPRNet (or other SECRET mission partner network). SIPRNet addresses are assigned by the DoD NIC.
Corresponding Security Controls: SC-20, SC-21, SC-22
While protecting/securing/defending the SaaS architecture is the responsibility of the CSP, Mission Owners contracting for and using CSP’s SaaS offerings must minimally address the following to meet DoD policy:
Register the CSP’s CSO in the DISA SNAP database for the connection approval which also includes the designation of a certified CSSP for the performance of Mission Cyberspace Defense (MCD) Actions as defined in Section 6 Cyberspace Defense and Incident Response.
This step is required at all levels for SaaS, including level 2 (even though there is no production connection to the DISN) so that the DoD CSSP community is aware and informed such that they can perform their Cyberspace Defense duties described in Section 5.18, Supply Chain Risk Management Assessment.
As discussed in Section 5.10.3, CSP Service Architecture, the Mission Owner is reliant on the security posture of the CSP and their SaaS offering for the protection of DoD data/information.
Mission Owners must address defense-in-depth security / protective measures across all information impact levels when implementing systems/applications on IaaS / PaaS which include, but are not limited to, the following:
NOTE: Virtual networks are typically a feature of the virtualization hypervisor which supports the VMs.
Impact Level 2: DMZ boundary protection requirements (i.e., proxies and firewalls) must be implemented by the mission owner for their application(s) or leverage a common boundary service provided by a larger entity like DoD Component or the DoD enterprise. This will most likely occur on a CSP by CSP basis. Other common services may also be available.
Impact Level 4: DMZ boundary protection requirements (i.e., proxies, firewalls, etc.) will be provided by the Mission Owner in their system/application environment until such time as these protections are provided by the Mission Owner’s agency or DISA as an enterprise service.
NOTE: Under PaaS (and potentially IaaS) where CSPs may be under contract to securely configure (harden / STIG) / patch / maintain Mission Owner’s VMs, OSs, applications, or maintain STIGed and patched VM images for their use, such services must be validated to DoD standards IAW all applicable policies (e.g., privileged access). If the CSP is contracted by the Mission Owner to securely configure OSs and applications, then the CSP is expected to comply with all applicable DoD STIGs. For IAVA compliance, the CSP will be expected to comply with industry best practice by applying patches identified in the CVE that would be referenced in the DoD IAVA. Equivalencies will be assessed and approved on a case by case basis.
Active Directory (AD) implementations (if needed) will be configured IAW the Active Directory Domain and Forest STIGs[93] along with the following guidance related to Cloud services:
NOTE: this mitigates the potential for a compromised Mission Owner’s AD in the commercial CSO being able to compromise a DoD AD on the DISN
NOTE: this mitigates the potential for a compromised CSP’s AD being able to compromise a DoD AD on the DISN.
NOTE: Established DoD guidelines for AD implementation are found in the AD Domain and Forrest STIGs noted above.
[93] Active Directory Domain and Forest STIGs: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/os/windows/Pages/active-directory.aspx
Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) is used to extend on-premises Active Directory access control credential use and single sign-on (SSO) capabilities to web servers located in another organization such as a CSP’s SaaS CSO. This capability will enable access control to multiple web applications over the life of a single browser session. This is also applicable to providing SSO capabilities to a mission owner’s own web application instantiated in IaaS/PaaS CSO without placing an AD server in the virtual environment. Since ADFS in essence allows the CSP’s CSO or external web application to trust the DoD identity claim asserted on behalf of the DoD AD, the use of ADFS meets the intent of the AD requirements stated above.
Active Directory DirSync is a Microsoft Azure tool which is specific to a specific Microsoft SaaS CSO. DirSync is installed on a domain-joined server (on-premises or on a Microsoft Azure VM) to “synchronize your on-premises Active Directory users to Office 365 for professionals and small businesses”[94]. Since this tool provides user information to the Office 365 AD as a push, then the Office 365 AD is used to provide access control to the CSO for those users, this tool meets the intent of the Non-DoD CSP managed AD requirements stated above.
Mission systems at all impact levels must have the capability for DoD data to be encrypted at rest with exclusive DoD control of encryption keys and key management. Some CSOs may facilitate this by providing a Hardware Security Module (HSM) or offering customer dedicated HSM devices as a service. CSOs that do not provide such a capability may require Mission Owners to utilize encryption hardware/software on the DISN or a cloud encryption service that provides DoD control of keys and key management.
Data-at-rest (DAR) encryption with customer controlled keys and key management protects the DoD data stored in CSOs with the following benefits:
NOTE: Mission Owners and their AOs should consider the benefits of DAR encryption for data destruction and/or spill remediation at Level 2 in addition to the benefit of maintaining integrity of the information.
For all Information Impact levels:
For cloud applications where encrypting DAR with DoD key control is not possible, Mission Owners must perform a risk analysis with relevant data owners before transferring data into a CSO. This analysis must take into account that there may be no high-assurance method available to remediate data spills or ensure destruction of data at the application’s end of life and CSO off-boarding. Mission Owner AOs are responsible for accepting these risks.
NOTE: CSPs CSOs DAR encryption capabilities and ability to support Mission Owner’s DAR encryption requirements will be assessed and documented toward the award of their DoD PA.
Corresponding Security Controls: SC-28, SC-28(1)
Cryptographic erase is described in NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1[96]:
“Cryptographic Erase is an emerging sanitization technique that can be used in some situations when data is encrypted as it is stored on media. With CE, media sanitization is performed by sanitizing the cryptographic keys used to encrypt the data, as opposed to sanitizing the storage locations on media containing the encrypted data itself. CE techniques are typically capable of sanitizing media very quickly and could support partial sanitization, a technique where a subset of storage media is sanitization. Partial sanitization, sometimes referred to as selective sanitization, has potential applications in cloud computing.”
While much of the CE guidance in SP 800-88 is related to self-encrypting devices, this section expands on NIST’s acknowledgement that CE has applicability in cloud computing.
DAR encryption, coupled with exclusive customer control of cryptographic key management, provides DoD the ability to cryptographically erase data at rest without CSP assistance or cooperation. This capability coupled with standard CSP provided data deletion provides the following benefits described for DAR encryption in Section 5.11 above.
Data deletion refers to normal file or data record deletion methods used in file systems and data bases. Deletion before or after cryptographic erase will restore resources to the CSP and will permit for the eventual overwriting of the data under normal operations.
To support cryptographic erase and the various benefits it provides DAR encryption must be performed at an appropriate level of granularity. This means that one key should not be used to encrypt all or large chunks of mission owner data.
Related Security Controls: MP-6(3), MP-6(8)
CSPs are responsible for providing backups of data in a CSO consistent with the CP-9 security control. Mission Owners are also responsible for assuring their data is backed up consistent with the CP-9. However, mission owners must also consider the risk of entrusting their data to a single non-DoD CSP. Section 5.8, Data Retrieval and Destruction for Off-boarding from a CSO discusses the importance of Mission Owners being ready to recover and/or migrate their data on short notice in case of CSO shutdown. This readiness, along with CSP backup requirements, may be sufficient for DoD data of low to moderate impact value. However, Mission Owners with higher impact value data should consider conducting regular backups of their data and storing them in DoD-owned infrastructure/media or a cloud storage service offered by a different CSP.
Backups stored with a different provider reduce the risk of data loss/corruption in the case of a CSO ceasing operations or catastrophic event that affects a CSP’s entire infrastructure. Maintenance of such backups may also mitigate the risk of data loss sustained from of a data spillage response. Mission Owners should determine the potential need for such risk mitigation as part of the contingency planning required by the CP-2 security control.
NOTE: In the case of IaaS/PaaS backups, “data” as used in this section includes VM snapshots or images of the fully configured VMs including their virtual hard drives so that restoration of the computational base is as easy as the restoration of the information processed.
NOTE: This section is provided for consideration by Mission Owners. It does not affect CSPs or DoD PA assessments.
Corresponding Security Controls: CP-2, CP-9
This section focuses specifically on Non-CSP DoD contractors or mission partners (e.g., Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractors) and DoD Component mission partners (e.g., commissaries, exchanges, educational entities) whose networks that are not part of the DoDIN .mil domain. These mission partners and their networks are typically in the .gov, .org, .com, .edu domains.
When using cloud services, mission partners and contractors are responsible for following all guidance in this CC SRG related to the Mission Owner that is not specific to a DISN-provided capability (e.g. CAP) or an enterprise service. The appropriate impact level must be selected based on the DoD data being processed. A trusted means of communication that encrypts all DoD data transferred between mission partners and contractor internal networks and CSPs must be utilized. Mission partners and contractors are also responsible for working with the appropriate DoD data owner or designated agency (e.g. DSS) to create incident response procedures for incidents that occur in a CSO.
NOTE: the term “Non-CSP DoD Contractors” as used below does not include DoD Contractors that are not a CSP but aggregate CSOs (i.e., integrators) in the fulfilment of a contract for cloud services. As such, and as noted elsewhere in this CC SRG, the CSOs these non-CSP integrators are providing via subcontracts must follow all guidance related to CSOs and DoD’s usage of them.
DoD Component mission partners in the .gov, .org, .com, .edu domains must only use CSPs or CSOs that have a DoD PA for the Information Impact Level that best matches the CNSSI 1253 categorization of the information to be processed/stored/transmitted by the CSP/CSO. If the information is public, then a Level 2 CSO will be used with direct Internet access. Otherwise, accessing Level 4/5 services depends on how their organizational network/enclave is connected today. This may be as follows:
The organizational network/enclave:
Non-CSP DoD contractors and DIB partners may store, process, and use or create sensitive DoD data/information outside of the DoDIN in conjunction with a DoD contract not associated with providing cloud services. Such contractors are required to protect unclassified sensitive DoD data/information while it is in their environment (i.e., contractor owned/operated IT systems used by the contractor to support contractor functions that store DoD CUI) IAW DoDI 8582.01, Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD Information Systems[97] and NIST SP 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations[98]which mainly focuses primarily on confidentiality.
Non-CSP DoD contractors and DIB partners may wish to utilize Cloud Services in the fulfilment of their contract or for the protection/processing of DoD data they possess (i.e., CUI or Covered Defense Information (CDI)). Thus, for the protection of sensitive CUI/CDI, it is highly recommended that Non-CSP DoD contractors utilize CSOs that have been granted a DoD Level 4 PA.. Such CSOs must not be dedicated to DoD which would mean the CSO is only connected to the NIPRNet. That said, access to the CSP/CSO will be via the Internet or a private direct connection. The NIPRNet will not be used as a connection path. DoD contractors are responsible for implementing appropriate boundary protections for their networks and the protection of information placed in the cloud.
Non-CSP DoD contractors and DIB partners may NOT utilize CSOs that have been granted a DoD Level 5 PA as such contractors are outside the supported community of Federal agencies until such time as DoD changes this Level 5 limitation.
NOTE: Non-CSP DoD Contractors and DIB Partners are required to comply with NIST SP 800-171 for the protection of CDI. The DoD Level 4 and Level 5 baselines cover all of the C/CE referenced in the SP 800-171 except CM-3(2), CM-7(4), and IR-2(1).
A Non-CSP DoD Contractor might choose to integrate a third party CSO as a component of a contracted Non-CSO product or service (e.g., a weapons system or major application). Such contractors may only utilize third party CSPs or CSOs that have a DoD PA for the Information Impact Level that best matches the CNSSI 1253 categorization of the information to be processed/stored/transmitted by the CSP/CSO. Furthermore, the CSO and its use must follow the CC SRG guidance related to the Mission Owner that is not specific to a DISN-provided capability (e.g. CAP) or an enterprise service to the greatest extent possible. Connectivity to the CSO will be determined by where the contracted product or service will be used and related guidance in this CC SRG. For example if the user base for the product or service is NIPRNet based and the Information Impact Level is 4 or 5, then the NIPRNet BCAP must be used. If the Information Impact Level is 2, then the Internet may be used. All CC SRG requirements apply to the product and flow down to the sub-contracted CSO IAW various DFARS clauses.
In the event the Non-CSP DoD contractor chooses to provide/host the CSO themselves, the CC SRG requirements for the Information Impact Level that best matches the CNSSI 1253 categorization of the information to be processed/stored/transmitted by the CSO applies. If the CSO is dedicated to the product, A&A will handled IAW normal DoD contract A&A requirements. Consideration for awarding a DoD PA in this case will depend on the results of the A&A processes, compliance with the CC SRG, and the potential for other DoD Component’s Mission Owners to use the CSO.
Cloud environments are a good place Mission Owners to do application development and testing as well as research. Furthermore, test and development activities associated with application lifecycle management for cloud based applications are best performed in the same environment as the production application. This section addresses DoD Test and Development (T&D) activities in IaaS and PaaS CSOs where the Mission Owner has control of the environment.
Security requirements for DoD T&D and laboratory environments are defined in the suite of Enclave T&D STIGs[99]. Refer to these STIGs on IASE for the latest guidance. This section of the CC SRG does not change the security requirements associated for each zone but it adds nuance when operating in the cloud. All T&D Zones instantiated in the Cloud must comply with these STIGs except for the nuanced remote access guidance added here.
The Enclave T&D STIG Overview document defines four (4) T&D Zones. These zones are briefly described as follows:
NOTE: Zone A supports or is representative of the environments in which the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) and Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) performs DoD’s Test and Evaluation (T&E) on DoD applications and systems.
All DoD test and development performed in cloud infrastructure must be categorized IAW the T&D Zone descriptions in the Enclave T&D STIG Overview document and comply with the security requirements in the associated Enclave T&D STIG.
Since Zones A and B are instrumental in application lifecycle management and able to be connected to the production network, it is reasonable that these zones can and should be implemented in the same IaaS/PaaS cloud infrastructure as the production applications they support. Due to the robust routing and filtering capabilities inherent in today’s virtual networks, the segmentation of these zones can easily be implemented IAW the related Zone A and B STIG requirements using VLANs or distinct virtual networks.
Application lifecycle management typically involves an application development Zone B, an application test Zone A, and a production zone. Each zone has its own cyber security requirements that must be implemented to protect the zone itself and the DoDIN. As with DoD production applications, T&D zones A and B may be instantiated in DoD private I/PaaS CSOs connected to the NIPRNet. T&D zones A and B must also be protected and monitored by the same CSSP as the production zone when implemented in the same CSO.
DoD application test Zone A instantiated in cloud infrastructure must be implemented in the same CSP/CSO with the same information impact level and having the same connectivity model as the production application zone to support lifecycle management of the application. The sensitivity of the information processed by the production application determines the information impact level of the CSO and its PA IAW this SRG. While there may be some exceptions based on where the application developers reside, this also applies to DoD application development Zone B when used for the lifecycle management of a production application. Placing all three zones in the same CSO using the same connectivity model and CSSP as the production application zone helps to realize the efficiencies of the cloud and ultimately better protect the application, the information being processed/stored and the DoDIN
DoD application development Zone B instantiated in cloud infrastructure must minimally be implemented in a CSP’s CSO that has a Level 2 PA to support pre-production application development with developers accessing the zone via the Internet. Consideration for implementing Zone B in a Level 4/5 CSO for this purpose, will depend on the sensitivity of the application itself and its code. This is at the discretion of the program’s IAM or responsible AO. Again, once pre-production development is complete and if the Zone B is to be used for the lifecycle management of a production application, then it should be implemented in the same CSP/CSO as the production application. While the systems within the Zone B are not required to be STIG compliant and may not be subject to the same HBSS and ACAS requirements as a Zone A or the production zone, the network infrastructure and network transport must be STIG compliant. This includes a properly hardened zone boundary stack to protect the less than secure inside of the zone. This boundary must be monitored and protected by a CSSP.
While Zones C and D are typically implemented in physical facilities and while various aspects may use virtualization, these zones may only be implemented in cloud services providing the required lack of connectivity to DoD production networks. This generally precludes on-premises CSOs connected to NIPRNet which are intended for wide usage by multiple DoD tenants such as milCloud as designed today. Alternately Zones C and/or D might be implemented in an off-premises commercial or an on-premises DoD cloud environment where there is no direct connectivity to DoD networks, providing the testing activities do not threaten the CSP’s CSO and/or network, other CSP tenants’ systems/applications or the Internet. Additional exceptions and requirements for these use cases may be provided in a future release of this or another SRG. Zones C and D which might be categorized at Levels 4/5/6 and implemented in off-premises CSOs are not permitted to connect to the DISN; i.e., these zones will not connect via a BCAP. Zones C and D may or may not be monitored and protected by a CSSP, however a CSSP must be aligned to receive incident reports and perform incident response.
Corresponding Security Controls: CM-4, CM-4 (1)
Workstation connectivity to all T&D zones instantiated in the Cloud will use remote connectivity methods as a result of the nature of Cloud. The different zones require different types of workstations and remote connectivity models. The options are as follows:
Mission Owners using CSOs of any service type (I/P/SaaS) must comply with DoDI 8551.01: Ports, Protocols, and Services Management (PPSM)[100] when implementing and operating their systems/applications in an IaaS/PaaS CSO or when using a SaaS offering. DoDI 8551.01 is the DoD policy that provides policy guidance for DoD Mission Owner compliance with CM-7, CM-7 (1), and SA-9 (2). While CSPs must comply with these C/CE for their internal networks and service offerings, DoDI 8551.01 does not apply to CSPs as the policy applies to Protocols and Services (PS) traversing the DISN.
The DISA PPSM office[101] [102], along with the PPSM Change Control Board (CCB) and Technical Advisory Group (TAG) publish a Category Assignment List (CAL) which lists the PS permitted to cross certain DISN boundaries and Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) for each PS listed. Compliance with VAs is the key to the secure usage of the PS listed in the CAL. In other words, PS used on the DISN must comply with the associated VA. Mission Owners must utilize the mitigations presented in the PPS VAs when building their systems. Additionally all Mission Owners must register their cloud CSO based systems/applications in the DoD PPSM Registry (only available on SIPRNet) to include systems/applications in an I/PaaS CSO or when using a SaaS offering. Registration includes all PS along with their related UDP/TCP IP Ports used by the application that will traverse the DISN. This includes all user and management plane traffic for Levels 4, 5, and 6 as well as management plane traffic for Level 2 if managed/monitored from within a DoD network.
The remainder of this section of the CC SRG provides guidance to mission owners when registering their applications in the PPSM database.
Level 2 Off-premises CSO: A Level 2 Mission Owner virtual network, virtual machines, and applications in IaaS/PaaS CSOs constitute a DoD enclave within and accessed via an external network. Similarly a SaaS CSO is an enclave within and accessed via an external network. This external network is the Internet. So for Level 2 the Mission Owner should leverage PPSM guidance for PPSM boundaries 1-5. This is only applicable to Mission Owner’s management traffic for their virtual networks and systems/applications in IaaS/PaaS and CSO management traffic for I/P/SaaS. When registering the application in the PPSM database the Mission Owner should register on boundaries 1-5. Since non-privileged user traffic will be via the Internet, registration is not required even if a portion of this traffic is to/from non-privileged users within the DoDIN. Such traffic will traverse the DISN IAPs as any other web based traffic.
NOTE: This guidance may change with regard to user plane traffic pending a decision of the PPSM CCB. Since firewalls and sensors are required at the boundary of a Mission Owner’s virtual enclave and since the sensors will be monitored by the MCD protecting the Mission Owner’s system/application, the same or similar guidance as is provided for Level 4/5/6 below may be applicable.
Level 2/4/5/6 On-premises CSO: On-premises CSOs at any level will be treated as normal DoD enclaves. PPSM Registrations will utilize boundary designations 7-11 if directly connected or 10-12 and 15 if connected via an IPSEC tunnel.
Levels 4/5/6 Off-premises CSO: IAW the CC SRG, Levels 4/5/6 Off-premises CSOs will be treated as normal DoD enclaves since they are architected as extensions of the DoDIN/DISN even though the CSO is in an external network (the CSP’s network) and are connected via a BCAP. As such, PPSM Registrations will utilize boundary designations 7-11 if directly connected or 10-12 and 15 if connected via an IPSEC tunnel.
NOTE: PS designated as local services may be used within the Mission Owner’s system/application virtual enclave in IaaS/PaaS CSOs as with any other enclave providing they do not traverse the virtual enclave’s boundary.
[101] PPSM Office IASE page: http://iase.disa.mil/ppsm/Pages/index.aspx
[102] PPSM Office Public page: http://disa.mil/network-services/Enterprise-Connections/PPSM
Mobile code is defined as software programs or parts of programs obtained from remote information systems, transmitted across a network, and executed on a local information system without explicit installation or execution by the recipient. Some examples of software technologies that provide the mechanisms for the production and use of mobile code include Java, JavaScript, ActiveX, VBScript, etc.
Mobile Code presents a great number of attack vectors to both CSPs and DoD Mission Owners. CSP organizational IT systems as well as the infrastructure that supports CSOs are vulnerable to malicious mobile code, and if compromised, the security of DoD Mission Owner’s systems/applications/information/data can be negatively affected. Additionally compromised CSOs and DoD Mission Owner’s systems/applications can negatively affect a customer’s endpoint and network if malicious mobile code is served by (downloaded from) these systems.
While DoD mobile code policies are under revision, CNSS and DoD has identified mobile code in categories as follows:
“Category 1: Mobile code technologies that exhibit a broad functionality, allowing unmediated access to the workstation, server, and remote system services and resources. Category 1 mobile code technologies have and pose known security vulnerabilities with few or no countermeasures once executing.
Category 2: Mobile code technologies that have full functionality, allowing mediated access to the workstation, server, and remote system services and resources. Category 2 mobile code technologies have and pose known security vulnerabilities, however, known fine grained, periodic, or continuous countermeasures/safeguards exist.
Category 3: Mobile code technologies that have limited functionality, with no capability for unmediated access to the workstation, server, and remote system services and resources. Category 3 mobile code technologies may have a history of having and posing known security vulnerabilities, but also support known fine grained, periodic, or continuous countermeasures/safeguards.
Emerging Mobile Code Technologies: All mobile code technologies, systems, platforms, or languages whose capabilities and threat level have not yet undergone a risk assessment and been categorized as described above.”
While most of the compliance with DoD Mobile Code policy is the responsibility of the Mission Owner, SC-18 (2) states “The organization ensures that the acquisition, development, and use of mobile code to be deployed in information systems meets organization-defined mobile code requirements”. The following applies to DoD IS:
“(a) Emerging mobile code technologies that have not undergone a risk assessment and been assigned to a Risk Category by the CIO are not used.
(b) Category 1 mobile code is signed with a code signing certificate; use of unsigned Category 1 mobile code is prohibited; use of Category 1 mobile code technologies that cannot block or disable unsigned mobile code (e.g., Windows Scripting Host) is prohibited.
(c) Category 2 mobile code which executes in a constrained environment without access to system resources (e.g., Windows registry, file system, system parameters, and network connections to other than the originating host) may be used.
(d) Category 2 mobile code that does not execute in a constrained environment may be used when obtained from a trusted source over an assured channel (e.g., SIPRNet, SSL connection, S/MIME, code is signed with an approved code signing certificate).
(e) Category 3 (mobile code having limited functionality, with no capability for unmediated access to the services and resources of a computing platform) mobile code may be used."
DoD expects the CSP to enact similar Mobile Code Policies for SC-18 (2) for their organizational IT systems and the infrastructure supporting their CSO(s) for the protection of the CSO(s), Mission Owners’ systems/applications/information/data in the CSO. Furthermore DoD expects that the CSP’s CSO will not enable or permit the download of unapproved/risky mobile code, for the protection of the CSO’s end users as well as Mission Owner’s and their end user’s systems and networks. SC-18 (2) is under consideration for addition to the FedRAMP+ baseline for all impact levels.
Similarly SC-18 (3) and SC-18 (4) have been assigned values in Table 9. These are currently in the set of SLA controls to be considered by Mission Owners for inclusion in the SLA/Contract. These too, are under consideration for addition to the FedRAMP+ baseline for all impact levels.
Mission Owners systems/applications must not download and execute mobile code except as permitted above, and must not enable or permit the download of unapproved/risky mobile code, for the protection of the system’s/application’s end users as well as their end user’s systems and networks.
This section provides information on the various registrations required for cloud based systems/applications in addition to PPSM registration discussed in Section 5.15, Ports, Protocols, Services, Management and Cloud Based Systems/Applications.
All Mission Owners are required to register all Cloud based systems/applications; their CSP/CSO, MCD, and connection method in the DISA Systems/Network Approval Process (SNAP)[103] database Cloud Module. This registration will enable these systems/applications to be connected to the DISN and is crucial for the situational awareness of the Cybersecurity Defense community tasked with protecting the DoDIN, DoD information, and the Mission Owners Cloud based systems/applications.
The DoD DMZ Whitelist implementation supports USCYBERCOM’s TASKORD 12-0371 and subsequent FRAGOs which support the operation of the DoD DMZ program. In the event the Mission Owners Cloud based systems/applications requires traffic to traverse the DISN IAPs, the systems/applications URLs/IP addresses must be registered with the DoD DMZ Whitelist. Traffic that will typically traverse the IAP is management traffic for Level 2 off-premises systems/applications and for user plane traffic to/from Level 4/5 systems/applications that are internet facing (i.e., accessed from the Internet via the DoD DMZ extension connected to a BCAP). Such traffic and IP addresses may be blocked if not registered in the Whitelist. The Whitelist can be found on SIPRNet at https://niprdmzwhitelist.csd.disa.smil.mil/home.aspx. There is a Whitelist Users Guide available via the “Help” link. Mission Owners may need to contact their DoD Component’s point of contact to have their entry added to the Whitelist.
In compliance with the DoD Memo, "Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services," 15 Dec 2014, DoD Components will report all appropriate information within the Select and Native Programming Data Input System- Information Technology (SNaP-IT)[104] as directed in DoD CIO annual IT budget guidance for each utilized cloud computing service. SNaP-IT is the authoritative DoD database used for publishing the DoD IT Budget estimates to Congress and the OMB Circular A-11 Section 53 and Section 300 exhibits to OMB for Information Technology. To comply, Components MUST respond to the SNaP-IT Profile questions for the Exhibit 53 into two submissions; the Exhibit 53A, 'Agency IT Investment Portfolio Summary', and the Exhibit 53C, the 'Agency Cloud Computing Spending Summary'. Components must identify whether a cloud computing option was evaluated for each investment, and provide detail as instructed. Components fulfill their requirement for all Exhibits 53s by completing their SNaP-IT Profile, Resource, and Budget Support Data for each component investment.
[104] SNaP-IT U: https://snap.pae.osd.mil/snapit/loginauth.aspx for Levels 2/4/5 systems/applications
SNaP-IT S: https://snap.cape.osd.smil.mil/snapit for Level 6 systems/applications
The DoD selected FedRAMP+ control SA-12 addresses Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) while SA-19 deals with component authenticity. The acquisition of system components and software that are counterfeit, unreliable, or contain malicious logic or code is of great concern to DoD for all products supporting the processing, storage, and transmission of CUI and classified information. This concern extends to Cloud Computing.
As part of the CSO’s DoD PA assessment package, the CSP will provide a SCRM plan outlining their supply chain assessment/management and component authenticity process and measures taken such that they are not acquiring system components and software that are counterfeit, unreliable, or contain malicious logic or code and incorporating them into the CSO infrastructure or its management plane.
The CSP’s SCRM plan for how the CSP implements SA-12 and SA-19 will be assessed and approved during the DoD PA assessment process for all Impact Level 4, 5, and 6 CSOs.
US CYBERCOM Task Order (TASKORD) 12-0920 requires the use of the Enterprise E-Mail Security Gateway (EEMSG) for all email inbound from, or outbound to, the Internet. It further requires email outbound from one DoD Component’s email servers to another Component’s email servers to pass through the EEMSG. The EEMSG only deals with server to server email traffic, it does not deal with client to server traffic. All DoD Components are required to use the EEMSG unless a waiver is in place. In the event a waiver is in place, the DoD Component must use their own email security gateway.
Therefore IAW the full TASKORD:
This requirement and interpretation of the TASKORD is based on the fact that the Mission Owner’s environment in any CSO is considered a DoD enclave that may include an email server either as the primary service SaaS offering or as an adjunct service to a PaaS/SaaS, or may be instantiated by the Mission Owner in IaaS.
In the event two Mission Owners utilize the same email SaaS and email servers, there is no need for EEMSG protections for email between the different Mission Owners’ users. However, in the event the CSO implements different servers/enclaves for different Mission Owners, the CSO must include an email hygiene/protective service through which email transfers between these servers/enclaves will route. In this case the server-to-server email traffic will remain within the CSP’s infrastructure and not traverse the CAP or EEMSG. Similarly, Mission Owners that implement email servers in IaaS or leverage a PaaS feature within their CSO based enclaves will follow the same rules as above for SaaS and must provide for email hygiene/protective service within the CSO for enclave to Mission Owner enclave to Mission Owner enclave traffic or route such traffic through the BCAP and EEMSG.
All BCAPs must support Mission Owner’s and implement the appropriate routing of server-to-server email traffic to/from the EEMSG capability at the CAP end of the connection for all CSOs that contain an email server. This includes routing to/from such servers and the IAP for email servers that are external and Internet connected. This is a CSO connection approval requirement. However it is ultimately a Mission Owner responsibility for TASKORD compliance when they use a CSO or implement a system/application in IaaS/PaaS.
NOTE: As of this release of the CC SRG, EEMSG does not currently inspect intra-enclave email. Therefore the above requirements do not apply to email traffic that remains within the DISN and Mission Owner enclaves in a CSO, until EEMSG does inspect intra-enclave email. That said, the requirement for EEMSG to inspect all email traffic to/from the Internet based email servers still applies.
NOTICE: This release of the CC SRG has been coordinated with the new Cyberspace Defense lexicon defined in DoD Joint Publication 3-12 (R), "Cyberspace Operations" and DoDI 8530.01, “Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations”. Additionally, due to publication of the DoDI 8530.01 and the replacement of the DRAFT Cloud CND CONOPS (rescinded) with DRAFT DoDM 8530.01, “Cyberspace Activity Support to DoDIN Operations & Defensive Cyber Operations – Internal Defensive Measures (DCO-IDM)” all releasable content from DoDM 8530.01 applicable to CSPs will be included in a subsequent release. Mission Owners and others will refer to the DoDM 8530.01 when published.
Cyberspace Defense addresses the defense and protection of networks and Information Systems (ISs), detection of threats, and response to incidents. Cyber situational awareness improves the quality and timeliness of collaborative decision-making regarding the employment, protection, and defense of DoD systems and data. DoD cyberspace defense actions provide the means to react to threats and incidents to defend the DoDIN. This section addresses critical cyberspace defense actions; roles and responsibilities; incident reporting and response; and other cybersecurity processes.
DoD operates a cybersecurity structure as defined in DoDI 8530.01, "Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations”. The structure consists of United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and Joint Forces Headquarters DoDIN (JFHQ-DoDIN) at the top organizational level and a network of Cybersecurity Service Providers (CSSPs) that have been accredited by USCYBERCOM IAW DoD policy. Each DoD information system is operated/managed by a Mission Owner which must be aligned with an accredited CSSP which monitors and protects the information systems and associated assets. The Mission Owner is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the security posture of their system(s) in accordance with SRGs/STIGs, and DoD policy in coordination with, and/or with the assistance of their aligned CSSP. CSSPs report information to USCYBERCOM which maintains Cyber situational awareness over all DoD networks and ISs. USCYBERCOM also provides threat information collected from various sources and threat mitigation orders to the CSSPs and Mission Owners.
NOTE: An example of maintaining the security posture of a Mission Owner’s system is the application of patches/upgrades and IAVM compliance. This is a Mission Owner-level activity or responsibility. While some DoD Components (e.g., Army) relieve their Mission Owners of some, or all, security posture maintenance activities by transferring their performance to the system’s CSSP (e.g., ARCYBER), they remain Mission Owner-level activities and responsibilities. As such, the CSSP is responsible for performing the transferred Mission Owner-level functions along with their CSSP-level functions.
With the move to commercial cloud computing, the DoD is adopting a risk-based approach in applying network defense capabilities and processes. As described in Section 3.2, Information Impact Levels. DoD has defined Information Impact Levels commensurate to the risk and type of data, with each higher level warranting greater protections.
With Impact Level 2 data, the overall value of the data is not mission critical or sensitive in nature, thus it may not warrant the same level of protections as higher impact level data, while still needing protection. Recognizing that the data at Impact Level 2 has minimal requirements for confidentiality, emphasis must be placed on integrity and availability that achieve a level of security and risk acceptable to the responsible AO. User connectivity to the information system flows through the CSP’s Internet connection; thus DoD is relying on the network boundary protections and monitoring available through the CSO if any. If the boundary defense is not implemented by the CSP, then the Mission Owner will be responsible and must coordinate with their DoD CSSP. Protection capabilities supporting the mission system at the system/host/application level will be provided by a combination of the CSSP and the mission system administrators (including the CSP for SaaS). See section 5.10.6, Mission Owner System/Application Requirements using IaaS/PaaS for related boundary requirements. CSPs are expected to protect their SaaS CSOs (and PaaS CSOs where the Mission Owner does not have control) by applying the appropriate boundary protections and CSSP services. See section 5.10.3, CSP Service Architecture and subsections for additional information and CSP requirements for all service models I/P/SaaS.
Level 4 and above data presents greater risk and thus necessitates the need for enterprise defense mechanisms and data collection that enable robust monitoring, event correlation, and analytics. With level 4 and above data, the DISN boundary is essentially extended through a connection between a DoD CAP and the CSP’s network infrastructure supporting the DoD mission. Therefore, an event may be detected through a few different entities: the CSP through monitoring of their CSO (especially for SaaS); the mission administrators or owners; or the CSSPs that are supporting the monitoring of the mission and the boundary connection. All entities must work together to quickly investigate and respond to incidents. The protection of a DoD BCAP is supported by organizations performing Boundary Cyberspace Actions.
Boundary Cyberspace Defense (BCD) Actions monitor and defend the connections to/from CSPs via an authorized BCAP. BCD Actions guard against the risk that each CSP interconnection poses to the DoDIN individually, along with cross-CSP analysis for all connections flowing through an individual BCAP. While these actions focus on the connections through a particular BCAP, cross-BCAP analysis is warranted to determine if a threat extends beyond a single CSP or BCAP.
Mission Cyberspace Defense (MCD) Actions provide services to Mission Owners’ cloud-based mission systems/applications and virtual networks. Any given organization performing MCD Actions may service cloud-based mission systems/applications and virtual networks instantiated in multiple CSPs and multiple CSOs. MCD Actions are executed by accredited DoD CSSPs with a focus on elements of cloud computing. MCD Actions will typically be executed by the CSSP used by the Mission Owner’s Component for their non-cloud-based ISs; however, Mission Owners can choose to use and fund any certified CSSP for execution of MCD Actions.
The following is a list of cyberspace defense actions and their responsibilities as it relates to cloud operations.
The following is a list of the Cyberspace Defense roles and responsibilities as they relate to cloud operations.
NOTE: As noted in Section 6.1, Overview of Cyberspace Defense some DoD Components might transfer some or all of these responsibilities to organizations performing MCD Actions.
Two key definitions related to this section as reflected in the CNSSI 4009, IA Glossary, are as follows:
cyber incident |
Actions taken through the use of computer networks that result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on an information system and/or the information residing therein. See incident. |
|
incident |
An assessed occurrence that actually or potentially jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system; or the information the system processes, stores, or transmits; or that constitutes a violation or imminent threat of violation of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies. |
|
For the purposes of this SRG, we will use incident and cyber incident interchangeably.
FedRAMP, through the selection and implementation of IR-6, requires CSPs to report cyber incidents to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team[105] (US-CERT) and the consuming Federal Agencies. For CSOs that are multi-tenant or otherwise shared across Federal Agencies outside of the DoD (Impact Levels 2 through 5), incidents will be reported to US-CERT as required by FedRAMP, in parallel with reporting to DoD. For CSPs providing dedicated infrastructure to the DoD (Impact Levels 4 and above), incidents regarding that infrastructure and CSOs will not be reported to US-CERT, but directly to the DoD. USCYBERCOM/JFHQ-DoDIN will handle coordination with US-CERT and other entities as appropriate. The DoD incident reporting process is described in Section 6.5.3, Incident Reporting Mechanism.
All CSPs actively supporting DoD missions will be supported by one or more organization performing MCD Actions. The organizations performing MCD Actions will be the DoD point of contact to which the CSP’s operational entity will coordinate response to incidents affecting the security posture of the CSP and the CSP’s cloud service offerings. The organizations performing MCD Actions will coordinate with the organizations performing BCD Actions as appropriate.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-4, IR-5, IR-6
CSPs will provide, either as part of their Incident Response Plan or through an Incident Response Plan Addendum, their approach to fulfilling DoD Cyberspace Defense integration requirements. CSPs will make their plan or addendum available to DISA for review and approval as a condition of its PA and inclusion in the DoD Cloud Service Catalog. CSPs will update and deliver the Incident Response Plan Addendum (if used) in conjunction with updates and deliveries of their Incident Response Plan, as required by the FedRAMP selected security control IR-1. A CSP must specifically address cyber incidents and data breaches, where a “breach” or cyber incident includes the loss of control, compromise, unauthorized acquisition, unauthorized access, or any similar term referring to situations where any unauthorized person has access or potential access to government data, whether in electronic or non-electronic form, for any unauthorized purpose. CSPs must ensure that the plan or addendum addresses all incidents regardless of the time, day, or location of the incident and must provide for notice to the Government of any breach of its data. The plan or addendum must incorporate any other policies or procedures that the Government may require to be followed in the event of an incident, including, but not limited to:
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-8
Defending DoD missions and systems is a shared responsibility that requires all entities (CSPs; organizations performing MCD or BCD Actions; Mission Owners and Mission Administrators) to work collectively as a team. An event may be detected by any of following entities, depending upon the connection architecture (direct Internet or through a CAP):
All entities must work together to quickly investigate and respond to events and incidents. In the course of a CSP performing Cyberspace Defense for its environments, CSPs will monitor their information systems and report relevant information to the organization performing MCD Actions, focused on situations where any unauthorized person has access or potential access to government data.
CSP’s reporting requirements to DoD will align with the reporting lexicon used by US-CERT for the broader Federal Government reporting requirements. Incident notifications should include a description of the incident and as much of the following information as possible:
Initial incident reports should be submitted within one hour of discovery with follow-on information provided as available. Initial reports may be incomplete to facilitate communication and teamwork between the CSP and the organizations performing MCD/BCD Actions. CSPs should balance the necessity of timely reporting (incomplete reports with critical information) versus complete reports (those with all blocks completed). Timely reporting is vital, and complete information should follow as details emerge.
NOTE: These requirements are applicable to all systems at all Information Impact Levels. The CSP must follow these requirements when integrating with DoD organizations preforming Cyberspace Defense Actions. Mission Owners must include these requirements in the contract, even at Level 2.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-5, IR-6, IR-8
[106] US-CERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Federal_Incident_Notification_Guidelines.pdf
DoD CSP's (e.g., milCloud’s) Cyberspace Defense providers will report all incidents using the Joint Incident Management System (JIMS) IAW normal DoD processes.
The following requirements are consistent with DFARS Clause 252.204-7012(d) as updated for Cloud Computing when finalized.
Level 2/4/5 Commercial CSPs will report all incidents via the on-line Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Incident Collection Format (ICF)[107]. Use of the on-line format is preferred. Access to this format requires a DoD-approved medium assurance External Certificate Authority (ECA) certificate. If you are unable to access this format, please call (877) 838-2174 or email: DCISE@DC3.mil.
The CSP must include, for routing purposes, all points of contact (POCs) of organizations performing MCD Actions for all DoD missions affected by the incident. This is in addition to any other POCs required by the tool for routing to contract managers, etc. The organization performing MCD Actions, once the report is received, will initiate the DoD reporting process via JIMS.
When classified incident reporting is appropriate and directed, CSPs will use SIPRNet email or secure phone/fax to report and coordinate incidents as specified. Level 6 Commercial CSPs will report all incidents to the organization performing MCD Actions using SIPRNet email or secure phone/fax to report and coordinate incidents as specified.
Existing notification mechanisms of a CSP that are already in place to communicate between the CSP and its customers for some or all classes of Cyberspace Defense information may be used, as long as those mechanisms demonstrate a level of assurance, equivalent to the listed encrypted mechanisms, for the confidentiality and integrity of the information.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-6, IR-8
Incidents and compromises will happen. When they do, they must be reported and then forensically analyzed to gain detailed information regarding how it occurred how to prevent it or protect the system in the future, and potentially who is responsible. Incident information must be gathered and handled in a manner that will support legal prosecution if needed. As such it must be protected from alteration from the time it is captured until it is no longer needed. Support for forensics is shared between the Mission Owner and the CSP to various degrees depending on the service type.
Digital forensics in the cloud has many challenges as described by NIST in Draft National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency or Internal Report (NISTIR) 8006, Cloud Computing Forensic Science Challenges.[108] This section of the CC SRG provides initial guidance regarding the DoD requirements for enabling and performing Cloud Forensics and supporting Law Enforcement and Criminal Investigation (LE/CE) activities.
The following requirements apply to all Information Impact Levels 2 through 6.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-4, IR-5(1)
CSPs or their subcontractors that discover and isolate malicious software in connection with a reported cyber incident shall securely submit the malicious software to the organization performing MCD Actions for analysis in addition to any other analysis organization employed by the CSP. The means of submission will be coordinated with the organization performing MCD Actions. The DoD Cyberspace Defense community will use their analysis to develop detection signatures and mitigation measures to be applied to DoD networks and Mission Owner’s systems. Analysis results will be shared with the CSP if permissible and the appropriate communication channels exist.
Corresponding Security Controls: SI-3 (10)
Under all service types including SaaS, when a CSP discovers a cyber-incident has occurred within infrastructure and/or CSO for which they are responsible, in conjunction with initial incident reporting, the CSP shall capture, preserve, and protect images and state of all known affected systems/servers/workstations supporting the CSO and the customer. This includes system logs, volatile memory captures, and hard drive (physical or virtual) images. The CSP shall also preserve and protect all relevant network logs, as well as all available network monitoring/packet capture data. This information must be collected as soon as possible after the discovery if not immediately.
The CSP will maintain captured incident information for at least 90 days from the submission of the required cyber incident report to allow DoD to request the information or decline interest. This requirement applies to the underlying infrastructure supporting IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS, the systems and applications managed by the CSP under PaaS, and all systems and applications under SaaS.
Under IaaS, when a Mission Owner discovers a cyber-incident has occurred within their systems/applications/virtual networks, they will work with their organization performing MCD Actions and CSP to capture, preserve, and protect images and state of all known affected virtual machines which they manage as well as any network logs, and network monitoring/packet capture data generated by their virtual network(s). This includes system logs, volatile memory captures, and virtual hard drive images. While the virtual hard drive image of a compromised VM is typically easy to preserve as a new image is placed into service, tools run on the compromised VM before it is shut down are typically used to capture and package the system logs and/or volatile memory and detailed procedures are followed. An example of this is the DISA Incident Response and Recovery Team’s (IRRT) First Responder’s Guide and web page[109] which makes software tools available for Windows and UNIX/Linux based systems to collect the necessary supporting information. These tools work within the VM and the volatile memory allocated to it. They will not compromise other customers’ information or VMs running on the same physical hardware which may be a concern for other tools. Each organization performing MCD Actions is required to have and use similar procedures and tools. The Mission Owner and/or the organization performing MCD Actions must subsequently coordinate with the CSP to collect relevant infrastructure logs in support of investigating the incident. Alternately, the CSP may/should also provide similar tools/capabilities that will work in their environment.
Under PaaS and SaaS, a Mission Owner, their organization performing MCD Actions, or the CSP may detect an incident. Each party must work with the others to collect the necessary forensic information from the areas of the service each manages. It may be unlikely that the Mission Owner will be able to run the tools discussed under IaaS above, however, the CSP must provide similar tools/capabilities that will work in their environment.
Under PaaS, if the Mission Owner manages their contracted servers (VMs or otherwise) OS and platform applications, it is their responsibility to perform the capture, preserve, and protect functions in coordination with their organization performing MCD Actions as described under IaaS on their own or using tools provided by the CSP. If, on the other hand, the CSP manages the CSO servers, OS, and/or platform applications, then the CSP must perform the capture, preserve, and protect functions. The CSP will then share their results with the Mission Owner’s organization performing MCD Actions.
Under SaaS, the CSP must perform the capture, preserve, and protect functions in conjunction with their CSSP. The CSP will then share their results with the Mission Owner’s organization performing MCD Actions.
All captured incident information is digital evidence. All digital evidence, when copied / captured from the system, the original and copied information must be hashed to validate the integrity of the copy initially and in the future.
To be effective, all incident capture should be performed using automation IAW IR-5(1). The CSP must provide an automated capability that supports incident capture and protection, which must support the CSP’s investigation of incidents within their own infrastructure and in customer’s CSO environments. An interface to the capability must be made available to the customer in support of the customer’s incident response activities as needed in their environments within the CSO. All such automation must capture the information in a manner that segregates captured information by customer such that non-DoD or non-Federal information is not revealed to the incident response team or forensic / LE investigators. Likewise the information relating to the government environment must be segregated from the information captured from the CSP’s underlying infrastructure. Once the information is captured, the automation must create one or more hashes of the data such that changes to it can be detected. The automation must then encrypt the data to preserve its confidentiality and integrity. Captured information captured from the CSP’s underlying infrastructure will be encrypted separately from the information captured from the Government’s environment. Encryption keys will be provided to the forensics analysists and stored in such a manner that only the Government has access to the keys for the information captured from the Government’s environment and the CSP has access to captured data from the CSP’s underlying infrastructure.
NOTE: At this time some of the tools provided on the DISA IRRT website (more specifically Oscar) incorporate licensed software and may not be used by other organizations other than as directed by the DISA IRRT.
Mission Owners must reflect these requirements in their contract /SLA with the CSP delineating specific responsibilities between the CSP and Mission Owner/MCD.
Corresponding Security Controls: IR-4, IR-5(1), IR-8, SI-12
According to NISTIR 8006, Chain-of-custody is defined in legal contexts as the chronological documentation of evidence handling, which is required to avoid allegations of evidence tampering or misconduct. In the event the incident discovered by the CSP or Mission Owner was maliciously caused by an individual, maintaining the chain of custody over the information is critical to being able to legally reprimand or prosecute the responsible individual or organization.
To support LE/CI investigations, the chain-of-custody of the captured data should be documented from end-to-end, person-to-person starting when the incident investigation begins. The individual that captures each piece or portion of the information initiates this documentation and each individual that subsequently handles the information or media containing it must continue the documentation. Chain-of custody-forms are available on the DISA IRRT web site noted above or from law enforcement. While chain-of-custody documentation is important and recommended; initiating the chain-of-custody forms and procedures may only be required if the incident warrants the notification of law enforcement. In that case, the chain-of-custody forms will be initiated by law enforcement officers. If requested or subpoenaed, the CSP will make their employees available to provide attestation either via affidavits or expert testimony on the CSP’s chain-of-custody and forensic data capture/collection methods.
Corresponding Security Controls: SI-12
CSPs will be evaluated for their ability to support the requirements above that are incumbent upon the CSP and for their ability to support requirements that are incumbent upon the Mission Owner particularly in the area of system image and state preservation. This includes capabilities and tools to support the capture and preservation of system logs, volatile memory captures, and hard drive (physical or virtual) images by the Mission Owner or CSP. The CSP must document their capability to support digital forensics in their Security Plan. CSP Forensics Support capabilities and their acceptability will be documented in the information supporting the PA.
USCYBERCOM or JFHQ-DoDIN disseminates Warnings, Tactical Directives, and Orders to the organizations performing BCD and MCD Actions. The organizations performing BCD and MCD Actions will analyze them for their applicability to individual CSPs, and then communicate with USCYBERCOM or JFHQ-DoDIN, and the CSPs, as appropriate. CSPs will coordinate with the organizations performing MCD Actions and Mission Owners to implement directives and countermeasures.
CSPs must be able to receive, act upon, and report compliance with directives and notifications sent by the organization performing MCD Actions on behalf of the Mission Owner, as required by FedRAMP selected security control SI-5.
Understanding existing vulnerabilities and risks within the enterprise is a key component in performing effective Cyberspace Defense analysis. The vulnerability reports and POA&Ms developed by the CSPs as part of continuous monitoring requirements supporting both FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ requirements will be made available to DISA’s cloud services support team and subsequently to the organizations performing MCD and BCD Actions for their collective use in providing Cyberspace Defense.
For both FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ requirements, high and critical risk findings must be mitigated within 30 days. Moderate findings must be mitigated within 90 days.
Corresponding Security Controls: CA-5, CA-7
Planned outages affecting mission systems are to be coordinated through the Mission Owner; with the goal of minimizing impacts to the operational community. An approved outage is referred to as an Authorized Services Interruption (ASI). CSPs must notify all affected organizations performing MCD Actions of ASIs under their control when an outage starts and upon return to service. Outages or changes that affect more than one mission environment must be reported by the organization performing MCD Actions to the organization performing BCD Actions to enable broader situational awareness. Mission Owners and administrators are responsible for the same notifications to the organizations performing MCD Actions when the ASI is under their control.
The DoD PKI program provides assurances of an individual’s identity, which is important in sharing information regarding C2 and Cyberspace Defense actions. This section outlines requirements for establishing trusted identities for CSP personnel communicating securely with DoD Cyberspace Defense personnel. Once an incident is reported through the process identified in Section 6.5.3, Incident Reporting Mechanism, and in the event signed or encrypted email is to be used as the subsequent communications method, DoD PKI certificates will be required as follows:
Impact Level 2 through 5: CSPs must preferably have either a DoD PKI certificate or a DoD-approved PKI credential for each person that needs to communicate with DoD via encrypted email. For more information on DoD-approved credentials, please see the IASE PKI/ECA web page[110] and PKI/PK Enabling (PKE) web page[111]. Equivalent alternative measures will be assessed on a case by case basis.
Impact Level 6: CSPs serving Level 6 systems will already have SIPRNet tokens / NSS PKI certificates for their system administrators by virtue of the connection to SIPRNet. Incident response and Cyberspace Defense personnel will use SIPRNet tokens/certificates to communicate with DoD via encrypted email.
[110] IASE PKI/ECA page: http://iase.disa.mil/pki/eca/Pages/index.aspx
[111] IASE PKI/PKE Page: http://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/interoperability/Pages/index.aspx
Vulnerability and threat information sharing is a highly effective way for DoD to help CSPs protect and defend DoD information housed or processed in their service offerings. Government sources such as US-CERT and USCYBERCOM provide detailed vulnerability information. Several commercial sources also provide supplemental information that can be used by CSPs in further defending their infrastructure. CSPs are encouraged to leverage such knowledge sources. However, much of the information that the DoD can provide to CSPs is classified. An avenue to obtain such information follows:
The Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity / Information Assurance Program[112] (DIB CS/IA) is a program to enhance and supplement DIB participants’ capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB unclassified information systems. Under this voluntary public-private cybersecurity partnership, DoD and participating DIB companies share unclassified and classified cyber threat information, best practices and mitigation strategies. While cyber incident reporting is an important component to the success of this partnership, the real value of the program is collaboration that is key to making DoD information more secure. Membership in DIB CS/IA enables DIB participants to acquire access to DIBNet-U and DIBNet-S, the unclassified and classified networks used for data sharing and collaboration. Access to DIBNet provides CSPs with access to CYBERCOM notifications, classified email, and the DIB web portals.
Access to DIBNet provides CSPs with access to both classified and unclassified cyber threat information, including mitigation strategies. DIB CS/IA program membership is voluntary, although cyber incident reporting as described in Section 6.5.3, Incident Reporting Mechanism is mandatory. Eligible CSPs are encouraged to join the voluntary DIB CS/IA program to facilitate their protection of infrastructure that hosts higher-value DoD data and systems.
NOTE: DoD CSPs are already integrated into the Cyberspace Defense communications architecture and receive unclassified CYBERCOM notifications via established channels.
Note: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html contains additional documents relating to SP 800-53.
B.1. Cloud Terminology
This section is organized by topic.
Cloud Service Provider (CSP): An organization, commercial or Private, that offers/provides Cloud Services. Unqualified use of the term refers to any or all Cloud Service Providers, DoD or non-DoD.
Commercial CSP: refers to a Non-DoD Non-Federal Government organization offering cloud services to the public and/or government customers as part of a business venture, typically for a fee with the intent to make a profit.
DoD CSP: will refer to a DoD organization offering Cloud Services which may be owned and operated by DoD or a contractor for the benefit of the Department (e.g., milCloud). Such services will typically be offered under a cost recovery model. A DoD CSP may offer cloud services to non-DoD mission partners
Non-DoD CSP: will refer to a commercial or Federal Government owned and operated CSP.
Cloud Service Offering (CSO): refers to a CSP’s product or service offering. In other words, a CSO is the actual Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) or Software as a Service (SaaS) solution available from a CSP. A CSP may provide multiple CSOs (e.g., Microsoft O-365 (SaaS) and Azure (I/PaaS)). CSO also refers granularly to optional services or software available within any of the service types (e.g., one or more specific database applications optionally available for customer usage under PaaS).
Community Cloud: A multi-tenant cloud in which services are provided for the exclusive use of a specific group or type of independent customer organizations.
Federal Government Community Cloud: A community cloud offered for use by multiple Federal Government organizations (which include the DoD). Resources providing the cloud services must be dedicated to Federal Government use and require physical separation from non-Federal customers.
Private Cloud: A single or multi-tenant cloud in which services are provided for the exclusive use of a specific customer organization.
DoD Private Cloud/CSO: a DoD Community Cloud or CSO in which services are provided for the exclusive use of one or more DoD customer organizations; supporting multiple DoD tenants or DoD sponsored tenants in the same cloud. The DoD maintains ultimate authority over the usage of the cloud services, and any non-DoD use of services must be authorized and sponsored through the DoD. Resources providing the cloud services must be dedicated to DoD use and have physical separation from resources not dedicated to DoD use.
DoD Cloud Service Catalog[113]: The repository of all CSOs that have been awarded a DoD PA and have security packages available for DoD components to leverage.
DoD Component: A DoD Service or Agency including their sub-elements/commands/organizations.
DoD Off-Premises: A facility (building/container) or IT infrastructure is Off-Premises if it is NOT physically or virtually on DoD owned or controlled property (i.e., On-Premises physically or virtually). See section 5.2.1.1, DoD Off-Premises Vs On-Premises Vs Virtually On-Premises for additional details.
DoD On-Premises: A facility (building/container) or IT infrastructure is On-Premises if it is physically on DoD owned or controlled property. That is, it is within the protected perimeter (walls or “fence line”) of a DoD installation (i.e., Base, Camp, Post, or Station (B/C/P/S) or leased commercial space) which is under the direct control of DoD personnel and DoD security policies. See section 5.2.1.1, DoD Off-Premises Vs On-Premises Vs Virtually On-Premises for details.
DoD Virtually On-Premises: A IT infrastructure located in a physically off-premises location such as a Federal Government or commercial data center (i.e., facilities under the direct control of non-DoD personnel using non-DoD security policies) may be considered Virtually On-Premises under specific conditions. These conditions apply certain physical security controls and extend the DISN accreditation boundary. In essence this construct virtually extends the DoD protected perimeter or “fence line” around the infrastructure. See section 5.2.1.1, DoD Off-Premises Vs On-Premises Vs Virtually On-Premises for details and requirements.
Mission Owner (MO): Mission Owners are entities such as IT system/application owner/operators or program managers within the DoD Components/Agencies responsible for instantiating and operating one or more information systems and applications who may leverage a CSP’s CSO in fulfilment of their IT missions. In this context the Mission Owner is not the DoD Enterprise or DoD Component/Agency Enterprise even though these entities may control and have oversite for Component/Agency level policies and Mission Owner’s acquisitions. The Mission Owner is also responsible to the Information Owner and the information system’s AO. The information owner, in addition to owning the information and all associated derivatives, is responsible for ensuring the data that is migrated to the cloud is at the appropriate security level having the approval of their Risk Management Executive/AO.
B.2. General Terminology
Authenticity: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “The property of being genuine and being able to be verified and trusted; confidence in the validity of a transmission, a message, or message originator.”
Availability: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “The property of being accessible and useable upon demand by an authorized entity.”
Classified Information: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “Information that has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 13526 or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form.”
C/CE (Control/Control Enhancement): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53 Security and Privacy controls and their enhancements which are selected and assembled in various baselines and overlays.
CSM: Cloud Security Model. The CSM is the document that preceded the CC SRG and has since been deprecated.
CSSP: Cybersecurity Service Provider. Defined in DoDI 8530.01, Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations.
Dedicated infrastructure: Refers to the cloud service infrastructure being dedicated to serving a single customer organization or a specific group of customer organizations (e.g., a specific community).
Confidentiality: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “The property that information is not disclosed to system entities (users, processes, devices) unless they have been authorized to access the information.”
Cyber incident: Actions taken through the use of computer networks that result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on an information system and/or the information residing therein. See incident.
Incident: An assessed occurrence that actually or potentially jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system; or the information the system processes, stores, or transmits; or that constitutes a violation or imminent threat of violation of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies.
Integrity: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “The property whereby an entity has not been modified in an unauthorized manner.”
JAB: Joint Authorization Board. The primary governance and decision-making body for the FedRAMP program.
Mission Owner: A DoD Cloud Consumer. As defined in NIST SP 500-292, “A cloud consumer represents a person or organization that maintains a business relationship with, and uses the service from a cloud provider.”
Non-Repudiation: As defined in CNSSI-4009, “Assurance that the sender of information is provided with proof of delivery and the recipient is provided with proof of the sender’s identity, so neither can later deny having processed the information.”
Provisional Authorization (PA): A pre-acquisition type of Risk Management Framework Information System Authorization used by DoD and FedRAMP to pre-qualify Commercial CSOs to host Federal Government and/or DoD information and information systems. PAs are to be used by Federal and DoD Cloud Mission Owners during source selection and subsequent system authorization under RMF. See Section 2.6 - DoD Provisional Authorization.
RMF: Risk Management Framework. As described in NIST SP 800-37, RMF is a six step risk based approach to information system security, the purpose of which is compliance with various public laws including FISMA. The RMF replaces the traditional certification and accreditation C&A processes.
Restoration: The return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.
SCA: Security Control Assessor. As defined in NIST SP 800-37, “The individual, group, or organization responsible for conducting a security control assessment.”
Spillage or Data Spill: an unauthorized transfer of classified information or Controlled Unclassified Information to an information system that is not accredited for the applicable security level of the data or information.
[113] DoD Cloud Service Catalog:
https://disa.deps.mil/ext/CloudServicesSupport/Pages/Catalog-DoD-Approved-Commercial.aspx (DoD CAC/PKI required) http://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/Cloud-Broker/AuthorizedCloudServicesCatalog.pdf (Public)
Table 7 provides a summary of the major roles and responsibilities in implementation of the CC SRG.
Table 7 - Roles and Responsibilities
| Role |
Responsibility |
|---|---|
DISA |
|
Cloud Service Provider (CSP) |
|
Cloud Access Point (CAP) |
|
DoD Chief Information Officer (DoD CIO) |
|
FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board (JAB) |
|
Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAO) |
|
DISA Cloud SCA |
|
DoD Cloud SCA (Other than DISA) |
|
DISA Authorizing Official (AO) |
|
|
|
DoD Component Authorizing Official (AO) |
|
Mission Owner (CSP’s DoD Cloud Customer DoD Cloud Consumer) |
|
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) |
|
Computer Network Defense Service Provider (CDSP) |
|
Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) |
|
Organizations Performing Boundary Cyberspace Defense (BCD) Actions
|
|
Organizations Performing Mission Cyberspace Defense (MCD) Actions
|
|
Table 8 provides a listing of only the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CEs that require parameter values. These C/CEs and associated parameter values are published here as a benchmark for CSPs and will be used for CSP assessment toward receiving a PA. It is not a complete list of all FedRAMP moderate and FedRAMP+ C/CEs that a CSP must meet. The full C/CEs text is included to provide full context for the selection or value being addressed.
Many parameter values are not defined by DoD or FedRAMP since they may change depending on the CSP organization and/or CSO. This makes it impossible to define all parameter values for all cases in this SRG. For parameter values not defined in Table 8 as indicated by the lack of a reference in the right hand column to the parameter in the left hand column, the CSP must define the parameter values in the Security Plan along with the details on how the C/CE is met for the DoD to assess and the DISA AO to accept/approve for the DoD PA.
NOTE: For some C/CEs none of the required parameter selections/values were defined by DoD or FedRAMP. As such the right column cell in the table is blank. The associated parameter values are treated as noted above with the CSP defining the value for assessment.
In many cases, DoD and FedRAMP defined different values for control parameters. In such cases, and as displayed, the more stringent parameter values will be required for a DoD PA at Impact Levels 4-6. Impact Level 2 CSOs will be assessed using the FedRAMP values. Controls with different parameter values for Impact Level 2 as compared to Impact Levels 4-6 are noted in the table. The CSP may offer alternate values or methods of meeting a control for consideration.
NOTE: For Level 6, the application of the CNSSI 1253 Classified Information Overlay will modify some of the values presented in the tables below. Overlay values take precidence.
Mission Owners must use, define, and/or tailor the parameter values for the applications they instantiate in IaaS/PaaS cloud services in accordance with the values defined by the DoD RMF TAG. DoD/FedRAMP predefined and CSP defined parameter values assessed for DoD PA award are inherited by the Mission Owners’ systems/applications. If the Mission Owner needs alternate values for these inherited values, they must be negotiated with the CSP and reflect the change in their SLA/contract.
NOTE: DoD Components / Mission Owners may tailor this set of values by altering existing or defining additional selections/values when publishing RFPs and executing contracts. Mission owners must either accept the values documented in the CSP’s Security Plan and accepted by the DISA AO as reflected in the PA or negotiate for alrernate values and include them in their contract/SLA.
Table 9 provides a listing of only the C/CEs listed in Table 3 - Security Controls/Enhancements to be addressed in the Contract/SLA that require parameter values. These are provided to inform Mission Owners and CSPs of the DoD values associated with the parameters. For parameter values not defined in Table 9 as indicated by the lack of a reference in the right hand column to the parameter in the left hand column, the Mission Owner must assign the value in their contract/SLA when selecting the C/CE, accept a CSP assigned value, or negotiate the value with the CSP.
NOTICE: These tables do not include C/CE added by the FedRAMPHigh Baseline.
Table 8 – FedRAMP M / FedRMP+ Control / Enhancement Parameter Values for PA Assessment
Control/Enhancement text |
Value |
AC-1; ACCESS CONTROL; Access Control Policy And Procedures: |
AC-1 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: All Impact Levels: |
AC-2; ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management: |
AC-2 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
AC-2 (2); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-2 (3); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AC-2 (4); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (4) System administrator and ISSO |
AC-2 (5); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-2 (7); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (7) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-2 (9); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (9) All Impact Levels: In support of auditing and accountability, shared/group accounts are not permitted unless the requirement to uniquely attribute user activity to the account is implemented; exceptions may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Personal accounts will not be shared. |
AC-2 (12); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (12) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
AC-4; ACCESS CONTROL; Information Flow Enforcement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-4 (21); ACCESS CONTROL; Information Flow Enforcement - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-5; ACCESS CONTROL; Separation Of Duties: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-6 (1); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
AC-6 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-6 (2); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
AC-6 (2) |
AC-6 (5); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-6 (7); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
AC-6 (7) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-6 (8); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
AC-6 (8) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-7; ACCESS CONTROL; Unsuccessful Login Attempts: |
AC-7 Impact Level 2: Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-8; ACCESS CONTROL; System Use Notification: |
AC-8 Impact Levels 4-6: Mission Owner Guidance: Configure the CSO provided customer logon banner capability and any Mission Owner provided logon capability to mission applications, virtual machines, databases, etc. IAW DoDI 8500.01 Encl. 3, para 9.a.(1)(d) for all privileged and non-privileged customer users that must logon. All Impact Levels : |
AC-10; ACCESS CONTROL; Concurrent Session Control: |
AC-10 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AC-11; ACCESS CONTROL; Session Lock: |
AC-11 All Impact Levels: |
AC-12; ACCESS CONTROL; Session Termination: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-14; ACCESS CONTROL; Permitted Actions Without Identification Or Authentication: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-17 (3); ACCESS CONTROL; Remote Access - Enhancement: |
AC-17 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: Level 4/5: On-Premises Commercial CSP infrastructure must connect to DoD customers via one or more Internal DoDIN Cloud Access Points (CAPs).Not appropriate for DoD to define for all CSP’s infrastructure or service offerings. The CSP defines the value and the DISA AO approves and/or accepts |
AC-17 (4); ACCESS CONTROL; Remote Access - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-17 (9); ACCESS CONTROL; Remote Access - Enhancement: |
AC-17 (9) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AC-19 (5); ACCESS CONTROL; Access Control For Mobile Devices - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-21; ACCESS CONTROL; User-Based Collaboration And Information Sharing RENAMED: Information Sharing: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-22; ACCESS CONTROL; Publicly Accessible Content: |
AC-22 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AC-23; ACCESS CONTROL; Data Mining Protection: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AT-1; AWARENESS AND TRAINING ; Security Awareness And Training Policy And Procedures: |
AT-1 Impact Levels 4-6:
All Impact Levels: |
AT-2; AWARENESS AND TRAINING; Security Awareness |
AT-2 All Impact Levels: |
AT-3; AWARENESS AND TRAINING ; Security Training RENAMED: Role-based Security Training: |
AT-3 All Impact Levels: |
AT-3 (2); AWARENESS AND TRAINING ; Security Training RENAMED: Role-based Security Training - Enhancement: |
AT-3 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: all personnel with the assigned role of routine physical access to the space housing the infrastructure supporting the CSO and/or media containing customer’s information |
AT-3 (4); AWARENESS AND TRAINING; Role-based Security Training - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AT-4; AWARENESS AND TRAINING ; Security Training Records: |
AT-4 Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-1; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit And Accountability Policy And Procedures: |
AU-1 Impact Levels 4-6: Source: FedRAMP v2
All Impact Levels: |
AU-2; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Auditable Events: |
AU-2 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: d. organization-defined subset of the auditable events defined in AU-2 a. to be audited continually for each identified event. |
AU-2 (3); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Auditable Events - Enhancement: |
AU-2 (3) All Impact Levels: |
AU-3 (1); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Content Of Audit Records - Enhancement: |
AU-3 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: session, connection, transaction, or activity duration; for client-server transactions, the number of bytes received and bytes sent; additional informational messages to diagnose or identify the event; characteristics that describe or identify the object or resource being acted upon |
AU-4; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Storage Capacity: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AU-4 (1); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Storage Capacity - Enhancement: |
AU-4 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-5; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Response To Audit Processing Failures: |
AU-5 Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-6; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Review, Analysis, And Reporting: |
AU-6 Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-7 (1); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Reduction And Report Generation - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AU-8; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Time Stamps: |
AU-8 Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-8 (1); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Protection Of Audit Information - Enhancement: |
AU-8 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AU-9 (2); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Protection Of Audit Information - Enhancement: |
AU-9 (2) All Impact Levels: |
AU-9 (4); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Protection Of Audit Information - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AU-11; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Record Retention: |
AU-11 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AU-12; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Generation: |
AU-12 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
AU-12 (1); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Generation - Enhancement: |
AU-12 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CA-1; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Assessment And Authorization Policies And Procedures: |
CA-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CA-2; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Assessments: |
CA-2 Source: FedRAMP v2 |
CA-2 (1); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Assessments - Enhancement: |
CA-2 (1) All Impact Levels: |
CA-2 (2); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Assessments - Enhancement: |
CA-2 (2) All Impact Levels: |
CA-2 (3); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Assessments - Enhancement: |
CA-2 (3) All Impact Levels: any FedRAMP Accredited 3PAO the conditions of a PA in the FedRAMP Repository |
CA-3; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Information System Connections RENAMED: System Interconnections: |
CA-3 All Impact Levels: Impact Level 2: |
CA-3 (1); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Information System Connections RENAMED: System Interconnections - Enhancement: |
CA-3 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CA-3 (3); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; System Interconnections - Enhancement: |
CA-3 (3) All Impact Levels: |
CA-3 (5); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; System Interconnections - Enhancement: |
CA-3 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CA-5; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Plan Of Action And Milestones: |
CA-5 All Impact Levels: b. at least monthly |
CA-6; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Security Authorization: |
CA-6 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
CA-7; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Continuous Monitoring: |
CA-7
NOTE: There is a discrepancy in the listing of ‘d’ in the parameter value, as ‘d’ does not have a parameter. This is however how the parameter is defined in FedRAMP v2. |
CA-7 (1); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Continuous Monitoring - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
CA-8; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Penetration Testing: |
CA-8 All Impact Levels: |
CA-9; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Internal System Connections: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
CM-1; BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Configuration Management Policy And Procedures: |
CM-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: b.2. at least annually |
CM-2 (1); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Baseline Configuration - Enhancement: |
CM-2 (1) All Impact Levels: Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-2 (3); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Baseline Configuration - Enhancement: |
CM-2 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-2 (7); CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; Baseline Configuration - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
CM-3; BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Configuration Change Control: |
CM-3 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CM-3 (4); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Configuration Change Control - Enhancement: |
CM-3 (4) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-3 (6); CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; Configuration Change Control - Enhancement: |
CM-3 (6) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-5 (3); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Access Restrictions For Change - Enhancement: |
CM-5 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CM-5 (5); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Access Restrictions For Change - Enhancement: |
CM-5 (5) All Impact Levels: |
CM-6; BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Configuration Settings: |
CM-6 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
CM-6 (1); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Configuration Settings - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
CM-7; BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Least Functionality: |
CM-7 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
CM-7 (1); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Least Functionality - Enhancement: |
CM-7 (1) All Impact Levels: Source: FedRAMP v2 Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-7 (2); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Least Functionality - Enhancement: |
CM-7 (2) |
CM-7 (5); CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; Least Functionality - Enhancement: |
CM-7 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-8; BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Information System Component Inventory: |
CM-8 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CM-8 (3); BASELINE CONFIGURATION; Information System Component Inventory - Enhancement: |
CM-8 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CM-10 (1); CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; Software Usage Restrictions - Enhancement: |
CM-10 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CM-11; CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; User-Installed Software: |
CM-11 |
CP-1; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Contingency Planning Policy And Procedures: |
CP-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CP-2; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Contingency Plan: |
CP-2 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
CP-2 (3); CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Contingency Plan - Enhancement: |
CP-2 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: |
CP-3; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Contingency Training: |
CP-3 All Impact Levels: |
CP-4; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Contingency Plan Testing And Exercises |
CP-4 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
CP-7; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Alternate Processing Site: |
CP-7 Impact Levels 4-6:
Impact Level 2: |
CP-8; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Telecommunications Services: |
CP-8 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
CP-9; CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Information System Backup: |
CP-9
Impact Level 2: |
CP-9 (1); CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Information System Backup - Enhancement: |
CP-9 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: at least annually |
CP-9 (3); CONTINGENCY PLANNING; Information System Backup - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IA-1; IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Identification And Authentication Policy And Procedures: |
IA-1 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: All Impact Levels: |
IA-2 (11); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Identification And Authentication (Organizational Users) - Enhancement: |
IA-2 (11) Impact Levels 4-6: |
IA-3; IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Device Identification And Authentication: |
IA-3 Impact Levels 4-6: |
IA-4; IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Identifier Management: |
IA-4 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: Impact Level 2: |
IA-4 (4); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Identifier Management - Enhancement: |
IA-4 (4) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
IA-5; IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management: |
IA-5 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
IA-5 (1); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management - Enhancement: |
IA-5 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: All Impact Levels: b. at least one |
IA-5 (3); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management - Enhancement: |
IA-5 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
IA-5 (4); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management - Enhancement: |
IA-5 (4) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
IA-5 (11); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management - Enhancement: |
IA-5 (11) Impact Levels 4-6: |
IA-5 (13); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Authenticator Management - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IA-8 (3); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Identification And Authentication (Non-Organization Users) - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IR-1; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Response Policy And Procedures: |
IR-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: b.2 at least annually |
IR-2; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Response Training: |
IR-2 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
IR-3; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Response Testing And Exercises RENAMED: Incident Response Testing: |
IR-3 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
IR-4 (3); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Handling - Enhancement: |
IR-4 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: |
IR-4 (7); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Handling - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IR-4 (8); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Handling - Enhancement: |
IR-4 (8) Impact Levels 4-6: |
IR-6; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Reporting: |
IR-6 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
IR-6 (2); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Reporting - Enhancement: |
IR-6 (2) ) All Impact Levels: Source: CC SRG best practice for community information sharing and mitigation of new vulnerabilities across the community |
IR-8; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Response Plan: |
IR-8 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
IR-9; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Information Spillage Response: |
IR-9 Impact Levels 4-6: f. time -sensitive actions that are necessary to limit the amount of damage or access. Keep a log of all actions taken regarding the CS/IA incident response, including the date/time of the action, who performed the action; create and maintain records, such as tickets, as appropriate for their role. Source: DoD Best Practice |
IR-9 (1); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Information Spillage Response - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IR-9 (2); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Information Spillage Response - Enhancement: |
IR-9 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: |
IR-9 (3); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Information Spillage Response - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
IR-9 (4); INCIDENT RESPONSE; Information Spillage Response - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
MA-1; MAINTENANCE; System Maintenance Policy And Procedures: |
MA-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
MA-2; MAINTENANCE; Controlled Maintenance: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
MA-3 (3); MAINTENANCE; Maintenance Tools - Enhancement: |
MA-3 (3) All Impact Levels: |
MA-6; MAINTENANCE; Timely Maintenance: |
MA-6 Impact Levels 4-6: IAW CSO SLA or minimally as follows: |
MP-1; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Protection Policy And Procedures: |
MP-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: b.2 at least annually |
MP-2; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Access: |
MP-2 Impact Levels 4-6: |
MP-3; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Marking: |
MP-3 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
MP-4; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Storage: |
MP-4 Impact Levels 4-6: Source: DoD RMF TAG Impact Level 2: FedRAMP Assignment: see additional FedRAMP requirements and guidance |
MP-5; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Transport: |
MP-5 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: prior to leaving secure/controlled environment: for digital media, encryption using a FIPS 140-2 validated encryption module; for non-digital media, secured in locked container |
MP-6; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Sanitization: |
MP-6 Impact Levels 4-6: |
MP-6 (2); MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Sanitization - Enhancement: |
MP-6 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
MP-7; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Use: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PE-1; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Physical And Environmental Protection Policy And Procedures: |
PE-1 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: All Impact Levels: |
PE-2; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Physical Access Authorizations: |
PE-2 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
PE-3; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Physical Access Control: |
PE-3 Impact Levels 4-6:
All Impact Levels: |
PE-3 (1); PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Physical Access Control - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PE-4; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Access Control For Transmission Medium: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PE-6; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Monitoring Physical Access: |
PE-6 All Impact Levels: |
PE-8; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Access Records |
PE-8 All Impact Levels: |
PE-10; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Emergency Shutoff: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PE-13 (2); PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Fire Protection - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PE-14; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Temperature And Humidity Controls: |
PE-14 DoD CSPs: DoD CSP value: a. For commercial grade information systems: 64.4 – 80.6 degrees F; 45% – 60% Relative Humidity; Dew Point 41.9 ° – 59°F; measured at the air intake inlet of the IT equipment casing; For other systems, levels within manufacturer specifications Commercial CSPs: |
PE-16; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Delivery And Removal: |
PE-16 All Impact Levels: |
PE-17; PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Alternate Work Site: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PL-1; PLANNING; Security Planning Policy And Procedures: |
PL-1 Impact Levels 4-6: |
PL-2; PLANNING; System Security Plan: |
PL-2 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
PL-2 (3); PLANNING; System Security Plan - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PL-4; PLANNING; Rules Of Behavior: |
PL-4 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
PL-8; PLANNING; Information Security Architecture: |
PL-8 All Impact Levels: |
PL-8 (1); PLANNING; Information Security Architecture - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
PS-1; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Security Policy And Procedures: |
PS-1 Impact Levels 4-6: |
PS-2; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Position Categorization |
PS-2 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
PS-3; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Screening: |
PS-3 All Impact Levels: |
PS-3 (3); PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Screening - Enhancement: |
PS-3 (3) All Impact Levels: |
PS-4; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Termination: |
PS-4 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
PS-5; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Transfer: |
PS-5 Impact Levels 4-6: |
PS-6; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Access Agreements: |
PS-6 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: Impact Level 2: |
PS-7; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Third-Party Personnel Security: |
PS-7 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
PS-8; PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Sanctions: |
PS-8 Impact Levels 4-6: |
RA-1; RISK ASSESSMENT; Risk Assessment Policy And Procedures: |
RA-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
RA-3; RISK ASSESSMENT; Risk Assessment: |
RA-3 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
RA-5; RISK ASSESSMENT; Vulnerability Scanning: |
RA-5 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
RA-5 (2); RISK ASSESSMENT; Vulnerability Scanning - Enhancement: |
RA-5 (2) All Impact Levels: |
RA-5 (5); RISK ASSESSMENT; Vulnerability Scanning - Enhancement: |
RA-5 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: all scans |
SA-1; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; System And Services Acquisition Policy And Procedures: |
SA-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
SA-3; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Life Cycle Support |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SA-4 (2); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Acquisitions |
SA-4 (2) All Impact Levels: |
SA-4 (8); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Acquisition Process - Enhancement: |
SA-4 (8) All Impact Levels: |
SA-5; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Information System Documentation: |
SA-5 Impact Levels 4-6: |
SA-9; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; External Information System Services: |
SA-9 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2:a. FedRAMP Security Controls Baseline(s) if Federal information is processed or stored within the external system
All Impact Levels: |
SA-9 (1); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; External Information System Services - Enhancement: |
SA-9 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SA-9 (2); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; External Information Systems - Enhancement: |
SA-9 (2) All Impact Levels: |
SA-9 (4); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; External Information Systems - Enhancement: |
SA-9 (4) All Impact Levels: |
SA-9 (5); SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; External Information Systems - Enhancement: |
SA-9 (5) All Impact Levels: |
SA-10; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Developer Configuration Management: |
SA-10 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
SA-11; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Developer Security Testing |
SA-11 All Impact Levels: |
SA-12; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Supply Chain Protection: |
SA-12 Impact Levels 5-6: |
SA-19; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Component Authenticity: |
SA-19 Impact Levels 5-6: |
SC-1; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; System And Communications Protection Policy And Procedures: |
SC-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
SC-5; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Denial Of Service Protection: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SC-6; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Resource Priority |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SC-7 (4); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (4) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SC-7 (8); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (8) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-7 (11); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SC-7 (12); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (12) Impact Levels 4-6: NOTE: DISA will evaluate Commercial CSP equivalencies on a case by case basis. |
SC-7 (13); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (13) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-7 (14); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (14) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-8 (1); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
SC-8 (1) All Impact Levels: a hardened or alarmed carrier Protective Distribution System (PDS) |
SC-8 (2); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
SC-8 (2); Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-10; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Network Disconnect: |
SC-10 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SC-12; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Cryptographic Key Establishment And Management: |
SC-12 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SC-12 (2); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Cryptographic Key Establishment And Management - Enhancement: |
SC-12 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Levels 2: |
SC-13; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Use Of Cryptography |
SC-13 Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-15; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Collaborative Computing Devices: |
SC-15 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SC-17; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Public Key Infrastructure Certificates: |
SC-17 Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-23 (3); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Session Authenticity - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SC-23 (5); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Session Authenticity - Enhancement: |
SC-23 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SC-28; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Protection Of Information At Rest: |
SC-28 |
SC-28 (1); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Protection Of Information At Rest - Enhancement: |
SC-28 (1) |
SI-1; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; System And Information Integrity Policy And Procedures: |
SI-1 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
SI-2; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Flaw Remediation: |
SI-2 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SI-2 (2); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Flaw Remediation - Enhancement: |
SI-2 (2) Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SI-2 (3); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Flaw Remediation - Enhancement: |
SI-2 (3) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-2 (6); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Flaw Remediation - Enhancement: |
SI-2 (6) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-3; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Malicious Code Protection: |
SI-3 Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: to include endpoints Impact Level 2: |
SI-3 (10); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Malicious Code Protection - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SI-4; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring: |
SI-4 Impact Levels 4-6: g. monitoring information related to a change in security posture and vulnerabilities that affects the DoD Mission Owner’s system/application/information the AOs who issued the PA and the customer’s ATO, and the DoD Mission Owner’s MCD as needed. Source: CC SRG best practice for CSP integration with DoD processes |
SI-4 (4); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
SI-4 (4) All Impact Levels: |
SI-4 (5); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
SI-4 (5) Impact Levels 4-6: All Impact Levels: |
SI-4 (12); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
SI-4 (12) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-4 (19); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SI-4 (20); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SI-4 (22); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
SI-4 (22) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-4 (23); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring - Enhancement: |
SI-4 (23) Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-5; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Security Alerts, Advisories, And Directives: |
SI-5 Impact Levels 4-6: Impact Level 2: |
SI-6; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Security Functionality Verification: |
SI-6 All Impact Levels: |
SI-7; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring |
|
SI-7 (1); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring |
SI-7 (1) All Impact Levels: |
SI-7 (7); SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Software, Firmware, And Information Integrity - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
SI-10; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information Input Validation: |
SI-10 Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-11; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Error Handling: |
SI-11 Impact Levels 4-6: |
SI-16; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Memory Protection: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
Table 9 - Parameter Values for SLA controls/Enhancements Listed in Table 3
AC-2 (13); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
AC-2 (13) Impact Levels 4-6: |
AC-3 (4); ACCESS CONTROL; Access Enforcement - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AC-12 (1); ACCESS CONTROL; Session Termination - Enhancement: |
AC-12 (1) Impact Levels 5-6: |
AC-16; ACCESS CONTROL; Security Attributes: |
AC-16 |
AC-16 (6); ACCESS CONTROL; Security Attributes - Enhancement: |
[Value not Defined; To be defined by CSP]
|
AU-10; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Non-Repudiation: |
AU-10 Impact Levels 5-6: |
IA-3 (1); IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION; Device Identification And Authentication - Enhancement: |
IA-3 (1) Impact Levels 4-6: Selection: Minimally remote and network DoD Supplemental guidance: Once a device is authentication it must be authorized using the principle of least privilege. |
SC-7 (11); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (11) Impact Level 4 |
SC-7 (14); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Boundary Protection - Enhancement: |
SC-7 (14) Impact Levels 4-5: |
SC-18 (3); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Mobile Code - Enhancement:
|
SC-18 (3) Impact Levels 5-6: “All unacceptable mobile code such as: (a) Emerging mobile code technologies that have not undergone a risk assessment and been assigned to a Risk Category by the DoD CIO. (b) Unsigned Category 1 mobile code and Category 1 mobile code technologies that cannot block or disable unsigned mobile code (e.g., Windows Scripting Host). (d) Category 2 mobile code not obtained from a trusted source over an assured channel (e.g., SIPRNet, SSL connection, S/MIME, code is signed with an approved code signing certificate)." Source: CNSS 1253 Supplemental guidance: For the protection of the infrastructure supporting a CSO, CSPs should apply this control to their organizational IT systems and the infrastructure supporting their CSO(s) For the protection of Mission Owners’, their end users, and networks; CSP CSOs must not support the downloading of mobile code which is deemed unacceptable to DoD. See Section 5.16: Mobile Code for more information. |
SC-18 (4); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Mobile Code - Enhancement: |
SC-18 (4) Impact Levels 5-6: Prompting the user for permission. Source: CNSS 1253, DoD RMF TAG with adjustment for Commercial CSPs |
This appendix provides tables containing C/CE that are in addition to, or modify, the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CE baselines. Additional tables are provided for the C/CE which have parameter values provided by the Privacy Overlay.
This section contains the following Tables:
A future release of the CC SRG will contain additional information that will define which C/CE will need to be assessed for a Privacy Overlay Rider for a CSO’s PA for those CSOs that are intended to handle PII or PHI. Mission Owner responsibilities will also be addressed.
The Privacy Overlay provides one or more codes in association with each C/CE addressed in the overlay to indicate how it is addressed in the overlay. These codes are as follows:
** NOTE: there is only one CE, AC-2 (8) that has a code “--” which includes code “R” which means the CE must not be selected for regulatory reasons.
The tables begin on the next page.
Table 10 - FedRAMP M C/CE Modified or Required by Regulation
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
AC-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+ER |
AC-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
+EGR |
AC-02 (09) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
GVR |
GVR |
GVR |
R |
AC-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+GR |
AC-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AC-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
AC-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
AC-06 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
|
+GR |
+R |
AC-06 (02) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AC-06 (05) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
|
+R |
+R |
AC-06 (09) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
AC-06 (10) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
|
AC-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
GR |
GR |
GR |
GR |
AC-11 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+GR |
AC-14 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
GR |
GR |
GR |
AC-17 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
AC-17 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AC-17 (02) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
AC-18 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
AC-19 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
AC-19 (05) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+GVR |
AC-20 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
AC-20 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
AC-21 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
AC-22 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AT-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AT-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
AT-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+R |
AT-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+R |
AU-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GR |
AU-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-06 (03) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
|
AU-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
AU-07 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
AU-09 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
AU-09 (04) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
GR |
GR |
|
AU-12 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
CA-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
CA-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+VR |
CA-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+GVR |
CA-03 (03) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+R |
CA-03 (05) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+R |
CA-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+GR |
CA-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
CA-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
|
+GVR |
|
CA-09 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
+VR |
CM-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
CP-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
CP-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
CP-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
GR |
GR |
GVR |
CP-09 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
CP-10 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
IA-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
IA-02 (11) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
IA-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
IA-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+GR |
IA-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
IA-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
IR-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GR |
IR-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
IR-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
IR-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
IR-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+R |
IR-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
IR-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
MA-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
MA-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
MP-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
MP-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
MP-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
MP-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+R |
MP-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
MP-05 (04) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
MP-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
+VR |
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
MP-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
|
MP-07 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
|
PE-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
PE-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
PE-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PE-17 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PL-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
PL-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
PL-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PS-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+R |
PS-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
PS-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
PS-03 (03) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GR |
PS-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PS-05 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
PS-06 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PS-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PS-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
RA-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
RA-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+R |
RA-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
+GVR |
SA-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
|
SA-03 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
SA-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+ER |
SA-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
SA-09 (05) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
SA-11 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
SC-02 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
SC-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
SC-08 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+VR |
SC-08 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+EVR |
+GR |
SC-12 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+GR |
SC-13 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+GR |
SC-28 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+R |
SC-28 (01) |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+GR |
SI-01 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
SI-04 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
SI-07 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
SI-10 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
|
+VR |
+VR |
|
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
SI-11 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
SI-12 |
FR.M |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
Table 11- FedRAMP+ C/CE Modified or Required by Regulation
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
AC-06 (07) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
AC-23 |
FR+ |
X |
X |
EGR |
EGR |
EGR |
|
AU-04 (01) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
|
GR |
GR |
R |
AU-06 (10) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
CM-03 (06) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
CM-04 (01) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
MA-04 (06) |
FR+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
SC-08 (02) |
FR+ |
|
X |
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
|
Table 12 - Privacy Overlay C/CE Not Included In FedRAMP M or FedRAMP+
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
AC-02 (13) |
SLA |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
AC-03 (09) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+EVR |
+EVR |
+R |
AC-04 (08) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
|
+VR |
|
AC-04 (15) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AC-04 (17) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
|
AC-04 (18) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AC-16 |
SLA |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
AC-16 (03) |
+ |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
AC-20 (03) |
1253 |
X |
X |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
+EGVR |
|
AU-07 (02) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
AU-09 (03) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
AU-10 |
SLA/1253 |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-10 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
AU-12 (03) |
1253 |
X |
X |
|
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
CA-09 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
CM-04 (02) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+R |
+R |
+R |
IA-02 (06) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
IA-02 (07) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
IA-04 (03) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
IR-10 |
1253 |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
MP-06 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
MP-06 (08) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
MP-08 (03) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+VR |
+VR |
+GVR |
PE-18 |
+ |
X |
X |
|
|
+GR |
+GR |
PM-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PM-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
GR |
GR |
GR |
+ER |
PM-03 |
+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
|
PM-05 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PM-07 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PM-09 |
+ |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
PM-10 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+ER |
PM-11 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
PM-12 |
+ |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
|
PM-14 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
PM-15 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
PR; AP-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PR; AP-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
C/CE |
SRG Type |
L4 |
L5/6 |
PII L |
PII M |
PII H |
PHI |
PR; AR-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+GR |
PR; AR-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; AR-03 |
+ |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
PR; AR-04 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+R |
PR; AR-05 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
PR; AR-06 |
+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
PR; AR-07 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; AR-08 |
+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+GR |
PR; DI-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PR; DI-01 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+GR |
+GR |
|
PR; DI-01 (02) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
+VR |
+VR |
|
PR; DM-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; DM-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
+VR |
PR; DM-03 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PR; DM-03 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
GR |
GR |
GR |
+GR |
PR; IP-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PR; IP-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+ER |
PR; IP-03 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; IP-04 |
+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
+R |
PR; IP-04 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
GR |
GR |
GR |
+R |
PR; SE-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; SE-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+R |
PR; TR-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
PR; TR-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PR; TR-02 (01) |
+ |
X |
X |
+GR |
+GR |
+GR |
|
PR; TR-03 |
+ |
X |
X |
+R |
+R |
+R |
|
PR; UL-01 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+R |
PR; UL-02 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+GR |
SA-11 (05) |
+ |
X |
X |
|
|
+ER |
|
SA-15 (09) |
1253 |
X |
X |
|
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
SA-17 |
+ |
X |
X |
+EGR |
+EGR |
+EGR |
|
SA-21 |
+ |
X |
X |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GVR |
+GR |
SC-08 (02) |
1253 |
X |
|
|
+GVR |
+GVR |
|
SI-07 (06) |
+ |
X |
X |
+ER |
+ER |
+ER |
+GR |
Table 13 - PII/PHI Parameter Values for FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CE
Note: This table may modify the parameter values in Table 8 and Table 9 when PII/PHI are involved.
AC-2; ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management: |
Low and Moderate PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-2 (9); ACCESS CONTROL; Account Management - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-6 (7); ACCESS CONTROL; Least Privilege - Enhancement: |
Low and Moderate PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-11; ACCESS CONTROL; Session Lock: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-19 (5); ACCESS CONTROL; Access Control For Mobile Devices - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AU-1; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit And Accountability Policy And Procedures: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: b.1. … in accordance with organizational policy but not less than annually…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AU-2; AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Auditable Events: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: a. … monitor system access, including unsuccessful and successful login attempts, to information systems containing PII… … successful and unsuccessful attempts to create, read, write, modify, and/or delete extracts containing PII from a database or data repository…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
CA-3 (3); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; System Interconnections - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … systems containing PII…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
CA-3 (5); SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; System Interconnections - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … permit-by-exception…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
CA-8; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Penetration Testing: |
High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … prior to authorization of information system and periodically no less frequently than when a significant change to the information system occurs…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
CA-9; SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND AUTHORIZATION; Internal System Connections: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … information systems containing PII…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
CM-3 (6); CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT; Configuration Change Control - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
IR-1; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Response Policy And Procedures: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
IR-6; INCIDENT RESPONSE; Incident Reporting: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
MP-1; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Protection Policy And Procedures: |
Low, Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay … |
MP-2; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Access: [Assignment: organization-defined types of digital and to |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: |
MP-4; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Storage: |
Low, Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
MP-5; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Transport: |
Low, Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
MP-6; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Sanitization: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
MP-7; MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Use: [Selection: restricts; prohibits ] . the use of |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
PS-3 (3); PERSONNEL SECURITY; Personnel Screening - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
RA-3; RISK ASSESSMENT; Risk Assessment: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-8; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-8 (1); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-8 (2); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: … confidentiality and integrity…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-12; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Cryptographic Key Establishment And Management: |
Low, Moderate, High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-13; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Use Of Cryptography |
Low, Moderate, High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-28; SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Protection Of Information At Rest: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SI-7; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information System Monitoring |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: … PII…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SI-10; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Information Input Validation: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: … PII…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SI-11; SYSTEM AND INFORMATION INTEGRITY; Error Handling: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: b. …authorized individuals with a need for the information in the performance of their duties… b. … authorized individuals with a need for the information in the performance of their duties…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
Table 14 - PII/PHI Parameter Values for C/CE Not Included In FedRAMP M or FedRAMP+
AC-3 (9); ACCESS CONTROL; Access Enforcement - Enhancement: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-3 (10); ACCESS CONTROL; Access Enforcement - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … situations where access control mechanisms are overridden for information systems containing PII under the Privacy Act…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-4 (8); ACCESS CONTROL; Information Flow Enforcement - Enhancement: |
High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-4 (17); ACCESS CONTROL; Information Flow Enforcement - Enhancement: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … the applicable organization, system, application, or individual…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-16; ACCESS CONTROL; Security Attributes: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-16 (3); ACCESS CONTROL; Security Attributes - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AC-20 (3); ACCESS CONTROL; Use Of External Information Systems - Enhancement: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AU-12 (3); AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Audit Generation - Enhancement: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value: … limited subset of authorized system administrators…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
MP-8 (3); MEDIA PROTECTION; Media Downgrading - Enhancement: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
AR-4 ; PRIVACY; Accountability, Audit, And Risk Management - Privacy Monitoring And Auditing : |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
DI-1 (2); PRIVACY; Data Quality And Integrity - Data Quality - Enhancement: |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
DM-2 ; PRIVACY; Data Minimization And Retention - Data Retention And Disposal : |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: a. … the time period specified by the National Archives and Records Association (NARA)-approved Records Schedule and the Privacy Act SORN…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SA-21; SYSTEM AND SERVICES ACQUISITION; Developer Screening: |
Low, Moderate, and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Value:
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
SC-8 (2); SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTION; Transmission Integrity |
Moderate and High PII Confidentiality Impact Level Parameter Values: … confidentiality and integrity…
Source: CNSSI 1253 Privacy Overlay |
This is a placeholder for a table of Privacy Overlay C/CE along with their applicability and supplemental guidance.
Table 1 - Potential Impact Definitions for Security Objectives (FIPS-199)
Table 2 - DoD FedRAMP+ Security Controls/Enhancements
Table 3 - Security Controls/Enhancements to be addressed in the Contract/SLA
Table 4 - Mission Owner Credentials
Table 5 - User/Data Plane Connectivity
Table 6 - Management Plane Connectivity
Table 7 - Roles and Responsibilities
Table 8 – FedRAMP M / FedRMP+ Control / Enhancement Parameter Values for PA Assessment
Table 9 - Parameter Values for SLA controls/Enhancements Listed in Table 3
Table 10 - FedRAMP M C/CE Modified or Required by Regulation
Table 11 - FedRAMP+ C/CE Modified or Required by Regulation
Table 12 - Privacy Overlay C/CE Not Included In FedRAMP M or FedRAMP+
Table 13 - PII/PHI Parameter Values for FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ C/CE
Table 14 - PII/PHI Parameter Values for C/CE Not Included In FedRAMP M or FedRAMP+
Figure 1 – Impact Level Comparison
Figure 2 – Notional Division of Security Inheritance and Risk
Figure 3 - Ongoing Assessment Division of Responsibility
Figure 4 – DoD Continuous Monitoring for CSOs with a FedRAMP JAB PA
Figure 6 – DoD Continuous Monitoring for DoD Assessed CSOs. 67
Figure 7 - DoD Change Control Process for CSPs CSOs with a FedRAMP JAB PA
Figure 8 - DoD Change Control Process for FedRAMP CSPs CSOs with a 3PAO assessed Federal Agency ATO
Figure 9 - DoD Change Control Process for DoD Self-Assessed CSPs/CSOs