CISA Issues Preliminary Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Goals and Objectives for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems

Sep 28, 2021

Reading Time : 4 min

As we noted here, the National Security Memorandum established “a voluntary initiative intended to drive collaboration between the Federal Government and the critical infrastructure community to improve cybersecurity of control systems.” It also directed DHS to “lead the development of preliminary cross-sector control system cybersecurity performance goals as well as sector-specific performance goals.” The preliminary goals were due September 22, 2021, and final cross-sector and sector-specific goals are due in July 2022. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo described the goals and objectives as “part of a long overdue, whole-of-government effort to meet the scale and severity of the cybersecurity threats facing our country.” And while they are not mandatory or legally enforceable in their current form, Secretaries Mayorkas and Raimondo also noted that it is “vital that critical infrastructure owners and operators immediately take steps to strengthen their cybersecurity posture toward these high-level goals.”

The preliminary goals span nine categories, and each includes “specific objectives that support the deployment and operation of secure control systems that are further organized into baseline and enhanced objectives.” The “baseline” objectives “represent recommended practices for all control system operators” while the “enhanced” objectives “include practices for critical infrastructure supporting national defense; critical lifeline sectors (i.e. energy, communications, transportation, and water); or where failure of control systems could have impacts to safety.” The nine categories—the order of which CISA notes “is not intended to imply a prioritization or specific progression of operations”—are:

  1. Risk Management and Cybersecurity Governance. This includes identifying and documenting cybersecurity risks to control systems using established recommended practices and providing dedicated resources to address cybersecurity risk and resiliency.
  2. Architecture and Design. This includes integrating cybersecurity and resilience into system architecture and design in accordance with established recommended practices “for segmentation, zoning, and isolating critical systems” and regularly reviewing and updating them to include lessons learned from operating experience.
  3. Configuration and Change Management. This includes documenting and controlling “hardware and software inventory, system settings, configurations, and network traffic flows throughout control system hardware and software lifecycles.”
  4. Physical Security. This includes limiting physical access to “systems, facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure assets, including new or replacement resources in transit, . . . to authorized users” and securing against “risks associated with the physical environment.”
  5. System and Data Integrity, Availability and Confidentiality. This includes protecting “the control system and its data against corruption, compromise, or loss.”
  6. Continuous Monitoring and Vulnerability Management. This includes implementation of “continuous monitoring of control systems cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities.”
  7. Training and Awareness. This includes training personnel “to have the fundamental knowledge and skills necessary to recognize control system cybersecurity risks and understand their roles and responsibilities within established cybersecurity policies, procedures, and practices.”
  8. Incident Response and Recovery. This includes implementation and testing of “control system response and recovery plans with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.”
  9. Supply Chain Risk Management. This includes identification of risks “associated with control system hardware, software, and managed services” and establishment of policies and procedures “to prevent the exploitation of systems through effective supply chain risk management.”

CISA also provides “Sample Evidence of Implementation” for each set of goals and objectives “to demonstrate what successful implementation . . . might entail for an organization.” In other words, “[s]uccessfully implementing all baseline objectives would equate to successful implementation of a goal.” In addition, CISA states that “while all of the goals . . . are foundational activities for effective risk management, they represent high-level cybersecurity best practices.” But “[i]mplementation of the [preliminary] goals and objectives . . . is not an exhaustive guide to all facets of an effective cybersecurity program.” Rather, CISA and NIST developed and refined the preliminary goals “with as much interagency and industry input as practical for the initial timeline using existing coordinating bodies. DHS expects to conduct much more extensive stakeholder engagement as the goals are finalized” by July 2022.

Our sense is that the extent to which incorporating such goals and objectives into a cybersecurity program would be challenging or costly will depend heavily on the characteristics of existing programs (if any) and what specific actions would be relevant and feasible for each affected entity. Indeed, there likely will be much variability from entity to entity. However, two main features of the preliminary goals and objectives stick out. First, they are clear, concise and straightforward. While implementation likely would vary across sectors and entities, they are at least well organized and easy to understand. And second, CISA provided “Sample Evidence of Implementation” notes for each goal and objective, which likely would prove highly useful in measuring and, as needed, demonstrating progress and performance going forward. With regard to next steps, it would be prudent for affected control system owners and operators in relevant critical infrastructure sectors to review the preliminary goals and objectives in detail and begin to think about any necessary adjustments to their cybersecurity programs and practices that might be necessary to meet them. Beginning this work well in advance of the final cross-sector and sector-specific goals next year could pay significant dividends over time.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC,1 an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In anticipation of future appellate challenges to its authorization of the CP2 Project, FERC ordered the initiation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the CP2 Project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Accordingly, FERC stated that it would not allow construction to commence on the CP2 Project’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related feed gas pipeline until the SEIS process concluded and a subsequent order was issued. Concurrent with its Venture Global order, FERC issued a projected schedule for the NEPA process that does not conclude until July 24, 2025. Construction on the CP2 Project had been expected to be imminent, with the project sponsor seeking a partial authorization to proceed with construction only hours prior to Venture Global’s issuance.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,2 a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”3 FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 4, 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 1920-A1 addressing requests for rehearing and clarification of FERC’s landmark final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation issued in May 2024. While the Commission largely affirmed the final rule, the order grants rehearing of some of the more controversial aspects of Order No. 1920.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 7, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.