[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
REVIEWING THE FEDERAL
CYBERSECURITY MISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING
THREATS, CYBERSECURITY,
AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-633 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Daniel E. Lungren, California
Columbia Mike Rogers, Alabama
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Henry Cuellar, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Laura Richardson, California Pete Olson, Texas
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Eric J.J. Massa, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS, CYBERSECURITY, AND SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Yvette D. Clarke, New York, Chairwoman
Loretta Sanchez, California Daniel E. Lungren, California
Laura Richardson, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Jacob Olcott, Staff Director
Dr. Chris Beck, Senior Advisor for Science and Technology
Daniel M. Wilkins, Clerk
Coley O'Brien, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Yvette D. Clark, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology............. 1
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Witnesses
Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Scott Charney, Vice President, Trustworthy Computing,
Microsoft:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. Amit Yoran, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness
Corporation:
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
Ms. Mary Ann Davidson, Chief Security Officer, Oracle
Corporation:
Oral Statement................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Mr. James A. Lewis, Project Director, Center for Strategic and
International Studies:
Oral Statement................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
REVIEWING THE FEDERAL
CYBERSECURITY MISSION
----------
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and
Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:53 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Yvette D. Clarke
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee], presiding.
Present: Representatives Clarke, Richardson, Lujan, Kilroy,
Thompson [ex officio], Lungren, Broun, and Austria.
Ms. Clarke. The subcommittee will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on reviewing
the Federal Cybersecurity Mission. I will begin by recognizing
myself for an opening statement.
Good afternoon, and thank you to all the witnesses for
appearing before us today. I am pleased to chair today's
hearing, my first as Chair of the Emerging Threats,
Cybersecurity and Science Technology Subcommittee. While there
may be a number of new faces here on the dais, I can assure
everyone that this subcommittee will continue to address many
of the same issues from the 110th Congress. Over the next 2
years, we will continue our oversight over nuclear detection
programs, radiological threats, public health threats,
cybersecurity and the Science and Technology Directorate. I
also look forward to working in the same bipartisan spirit that
the previous Chairman and Ranking Member carried on their work.
Mr. Lungren, I know that you take this responsibility as
seriously as I do, and I look forward to partnering with you
over the next 2 years to ensure the safety and security of the
American people, American businesses, American infrastructure
and the American way of life.
Today's hearing will be the first of three cybersecurity
hearings that the subcommittee will hold this month. It is easy
to understand why this issue dominates our agenda. We rely on
information technology in every aspect of our lives, from our
electric grid, banking systems, military and Government
functions, to our e-mail, Web browsers, and iTunes.
Interconnected computers and networks have led to amazing
developments in our society. Increased productivity, knowledge,
services, and revenues are all benefits generated by our modern
networked world. But in our rush to network everything, few
stopped to consider the security ramifications of this new
world we were creating. So we find ourselves in an extremely
dangerous situation today. Too many vulnerabilities exist on
too many critical networks which are exposed to too many
skilled attackers who can inflict too many damages to our
systems. Unfortunately, to this day, too few people are even
aware of these dangers and and fewer still are doing anything
about it. This committee will continue to sound the alarm
bells, raise awareness of the problems we face, and hold those
in charge accountable for their inaction.
This hearing comes at a critical moment in our Nation's
approach to their cyber threat. There is no more significant
threat to our national and economic security than that which we
face in cyberspace. We, the United States, must do everything
equally significant to meet this challenge.
We are approximately halfway through the National Security
Council's 60-day interagency review of the Federal
Cybersecurity Mission which began on February 16. The review is
being conducted by Melissa Hathaway, senior director of the
NSC, on orders from President Obama and the National Security
Adviser. The goal for the review is to develop a strategic
framework to ensure the U.S. Government's cybersecurity
initiatives are appropriately integrated, resourced, and
coordinated with Congress and the private sector. I commend the
President for his vision in making cybersecurity a priority for
his administration and for requesting this review.
Given this committee's leadership role in cybersecurity
policy development, we look forward to working with Ms.
Hathaway and her team. Thankfully, their review does not have
to start from scratch. I encourage the review team to rely upon
the extensive hearing record of this committee in the 110th
Congress, and from the work that our witnesses have already
undertaken in that area.
The CSIS Commission report and the many GAO reports which
Mr. Powner's team have produced over the years contain dozens
of outstanding recommendations that, if actually implemented,
will improve our national security posture. That message bears
repeating. The previous 2 decades have seen countless reports
from America's thought leaders in cybersecurity, containing
hundreds of recommendations about how to improve America's
posture in cyberspace. What has been lacking is the courage and
leadership to actually implement these recommendations.
Now is the time to act. To ensure our national and economic
security, now is the time we must act. The U.S. Government must
chart a new course to secure cyberspace. Maintaining the status
quo will not be enough to keep America secure. Now is the time
for the Government to stop planning and start acting.
There are three key issues that I believe this review must
address.
The 60-day review. First, this review must call for a
national strategy for cyberspace. The previous administration
drafted a high-level national security strategy in 2002 that
presented problems and possible solutions to some of the same
cybersecurity issues that we face today. Unfortunately, that
strategy stopped short of mandating security changes. Without
teeth, the strategy was never implemented. We need a strategy
that uses all of the tools of the U.S. power in a coordinated
fashion, but more importantly, we need to hold our agencies
accountable for implementing that strategy.
That leads me to my second requirement, leadership. A lack
of high-level leadership on cybersecurity has cost our country
dearly over the last several years. The review must clearly
delineate roles and responsibilities of each agency involved in
the governance of cybersecurity at the Federal level, including
DSA, NSA, and DOD; but most importantly, it must describe how
the White House will coordinate policy and budgets for each of
these different responsibilities. The CSIS Commission
recommended, and I fully support, an assistant to the President
of Cyberspace Security in the Executive Office of the
President, along with support staff to coordinate this effort.
Third, the review must address the many policy and legal
shortfalls that exist in protecting our critical infrastructure
from cyber attack. Unfortunately, critical infrastructure
systems remain the area of greatest vulnerability. While the
previous administration relied on a voluntary protection system
throughout many of the 18 credible infrastructure sectors, I
believe this administration should seek to use a combination of
regulations and incentives to ensure that our electricity grid,
including the Smart Grid, water facilities, financial systems,
and other key infrastructures are properly secured. The
framework of this approach should be addressed in the review.
To the witnesses appearing before us today, I thank you for
being here. I welcome your thoughts on the issues I have just
discussed, as well as your opinions on what an effective
national cybersecurity review should look like.
I intend for this subcommittee, as well as the full
committee, to continue to play a role in shaping our national
security posture.
I would like to just take a moment to acknowledge that we
have been joined by the Chairman of this committee, the full
committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson. I think this amplifies the
importance of today's hearing.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Clark. Thank
you for the bipartisan manner in which you have approached the
organization of this subcommittee and the informal meetings
that we have had. I am looking forward to working with you and
with our colleagues who are here present and the others who are
Members of this subcommittee, particularly our Chairman, Mr.
Thompson, and our Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr.
King.
We need in this Congress to address the many threats and
challenges that face us and that are under the jurisdiction of
this subcommittee. Cybersecurity is certainly one of, if not
the most paramount challenge that we have, and I support your
decision to highlight the cyber threat with this, our first
official hearing.
When I chaired the subcommittee in the 109th Congress that
had cyber, the issue of cybersecurity within its jurisdiction,
I realized that our first challenge was educating our
colleagues and the public on the seriousness of the growing
cyber threat. After our classified cyber threat briefing last
week, it is clear that much, much more needs to be done.
In the words of today's witness, David Powner of GAO, our
Nation is under cyber attack and our present strategy and its
implementation have not been fully effective in mitigating the
threat. Now, I don't believe that this is because people wanted
this to be the case or that there was any conscious effort on
the part of Members of Congress or previous administrations or
people in the private sector. I just think it is a point of
fact that what you can't see, can't feel, can't hear, can't
touch, sometimes is not what you pay attention to.
Cybersecurity, the cyber world which is so important to us, is
embedded in so much of what we do but we don't see it.
I use the old analogy of the refrigerator. I open the
refrigerator, and all I want is cold milk. I really don't care
how it works. We have that attitude toward the cyber world that
is embedded in everything that we do. But we can't have that
attitude. I believe it is particularly true regarding our
information infrastructure, which includes our
telecommunications and computer networks and systems and the
data they contain. Information technology and computer networks
increase information sharing and collaboration, which does a
tremendous thing: It raises our productivity, lowers ours costs
and improves performance. Would that the rest of our economy
could do as well.
However, the rapid growth of the internet and our
interconnected computer systems and its networks have, as you
so rightly said, made us increasingly vulnerable to things such
as cyber crime, cyber espionage, and cyber terrorism. I fully
agree with the central finding of the CSIS Commission's report
that cybersecurity is one of the most important security
challenges this Nation faces. U.S. cyberspace should be
declared a vital national asset, perhaps even a critical
national asset. This would help the Federal Government marshal
its resources and implement a Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Strategy.
I have felt for some time that we are playing catch-up in
detecting and defending against the increasing number and
sophistication of today's cyber threats, whether they are of
the mischievous nature, of the organized crime nature, of the
nation-state nature. I agree we need a national cybersecurity
strategy, understanding that cyberspace can't be secured by
Government alone, and that is a very important point that we
have to stress. However, the Government does need to reorganize
and focus its national cyber efforts if we hope to defeat the
new cyber threats.
I would also suggest we need a true public/private
cybersecurity partnership based on trust and cooperation to
protect against this new cyber threat. The private sector,
let's make it clear, designs, deploys and maintains much of the
Nation's critical infrastructure. Therefore, we must honor
their experience, their expertise and their ingenuity--that is,
that which is found in the private sector--into a trusted
partnership with Government, a partnership where both sides
benefit and therefore are eager to cooperate and share
information. It just seems to me that in many cases we should
be setting certain standards or goals but not setting the means
to get there because the cyber world moves so fast, we really
can't catch up with this. Government, by its very nature, moves
more slowly. I don't want anything that we do to depress the
creativity of the private sector. Therein lies our greatest
opportunity to protect ourselves.
I believe the CSIS report's recommendation to create three
new public/private groups designed to foster better trust and
cooperation on cyber issues is the right approach. They would
be a new Presidential advisory committee that connects the
White House to the important private-sector cyberspace
entities; a national town hall organization that provides
dialog for education and discussion; and a new cyber
operational organization.
The Bush administration recognized the growing threat on
our national security from cyberspace, proposed a Comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative in 2008. The CSIS Commission
came to a similar conclusion in their December report,
``Securing Cyberspace for the 44th President,'' stating only a
Comprehensive National Security Strategy that embraces both
domestic and international aspects of cybersecurity will make
us more secure. Well said.
Everyone seems to agree that we need to do more, so I am
anxious to hear the testimony of our expert witnesses today to
help us on that journey so that we may do that which needs to
be done to meet this 21st century threat.
Once again I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the time.
Ms. Clarke. The Chairwoman now recognizes the Chairman of
the full Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Good afternoon. I believe this is the ninth oversight
hearing the Homeland Security Committee has held on Federal
cybersecurity issues since the beginning of the 110th Congress,
and I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for continuing our oversight
efforts. This is a particularly timely hearing, given the
recent resignation of Mr. Beckstrom as director of the National
Cybersecurity Center.
Some of our biggest challenges in the Federal
cybersecurity, reported by dozens of independent observers,
including GAO and CSIS, have come as a result of ineffective
leadership, unclear organizational structure and poorly defined
roles and responsibilities from agencies and private sector.
This is why I, along with many of my colleagues, were very
optimistic when Mr. Beckstrom was brought on to lead the
National Cybersecurity Center. He has expertise in
organizational structure. He has worked extensively in the
private sector. But Mr. Beckstrom did not have experience in
working miracles, and that is the unfortunate position that the
previous administration put him in. Without clear authority or
budget, he was placed in a no-win situation.
In his resignation letter, Mr. Beckstrom candidly described
the control that is wielded by NSA over the cybersecurity
mission today. This parallels the thoughts of some of our
witnesses here today.
I don't disagree with the public statements made recently
by the DNI, who said that the NSA houses most of the cyber
talent in the Federal Government. But I don't think the answer
to our problems in cyberspace comes from giving control of the
entire Federal Cybersecurity Mission to NSA. I want to clearly
state that this committee believes that there should be a
creditable civilian government cybersecurity capability that
interfaces with, but is not controlled by the NSA. According to
GAO, DHS has not proven itself up to the challenge yet. From
our work with DHS through the years, I don't disagree, but
there are pockets within DHS showing signs of improvement. US-
CERT and the controlled security system program are two of
these programs that I believe are demonstrating progress.
I hope the administration can strike the balance between
civilian and military cybersecurity capabilities. We here in
Congress are looking toward this administration for leadership
on this critical issue. I share the Chair's optimism about the
President's commitment to cybersecurity, and I hope that, at
the end of the 60-day review, we here in Congress will have a
clear understanding of the President's vision for
cybersecurity.
I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Clarke. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded
that under the committee rules, opening statements may be
submitted for the record.
I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. Our first
witness is Dave Powner, director for information technology
management issues at the Government Accountability Office. Mr.
Powner and his team have produced a number of outstanding
reports for this subcommittee throughout the last several
years, and we are pleased to welcome him back.
Our second witness is Scott Charney, corporate vice
president of Microsoft's trustworthy computing group. Prior to
Microsoft, Mr. Charney was a principal for
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, where he led the firm's cyber crime
prevention and response practice. Mr. Charney also served as
chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section
in the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr.
Charney was also co-chair of the CSIS Commission on
Cybersecurity. Welcome.
Our third witness is Mr. Amit Yoran, chairman and chief
executive officer of NetWitness Corporation, a leading provider
of network security products. Prior to NetWitness, he was
director of the national cybersecurity division at the
Department of Homeland Security. He was also chief executive
officer and advisor to Incutel, the venture capital arm of the
CIA. Mr. Yoran is a member of the CSIS Cybersecurity
Commission.
Our fourth witness is Mary Ann Davidson, the chief
secretary--excuse me--the Chief Security Officer at Oracle
Corporation, where she is responsible for Oracle product
security, as well as security evaluations and assessments. Ms.
Davidson represents Oracle on the Information Technology ISAC.
She has served on the Defense Science Board and is a member of
the CSIS Cybersecurity Commission. Welcome, Ms. Davidson.
Nothing against the secretary, but you are chief security
officer.
Our fifth witness is Jim Lewis, the director of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies and Technology and
Public Policy Program. He is also program manager for the CSIS
Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency. Mr. Lewis
has also been a regular witness before this subcommittee, so
welcome to you also.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Powner.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Powner. Madam Chairwoman, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Lungren, Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting us to testify on cybersecurity recommendations for the
new administration. Over the past several years, our work for
the subcommittee has highlighted many areas requiring better
leadership and management of our Nation's cyber-critical
infrastructure, including improving cybersecurity of control
systems, strengthening our ability to respond to internet
disruptions, bolstering cyber analysis, and warning
capabilities and addressing cyber crime.
This afternoon I will provide a progress report of our on-
going work for you, Madam Chairwoman, looking at improvements
to our Nation's cybersecurity strategy. Specifically, we held
panel discussions with nationally recognized experts and these
discussions, coupled with GAO's extensive work in this area,
have resulted in 12 specific recommendations for the new
administration to improve the approach to protecting both
Government systems and our Nation's cyber-critical
infrastructures. I will now briefly discuss each of the 12.
No. 1, develop a national strategy that clearly articulates
strategic objectives and priorities and provides a means for
enforcing action and accountability. The current strategy does
not do this, nor does it contain requirements to hold
responsible organizations accountable.
No. 2, establish a White House office responsible and
accountable for leading and overseeing the National
Cybersecurity Policy. Currently, DHS is our national security
focal point, and they have not delivered on this
responsibility.
No. 3, establish a governance structure for strategy
implementation. Create a governing body, similar to a board of
directors, responsible for reporting and measuring on the
strategic priorities. This body should be led by senior
executives from key Federal agencies, as well as key sectors.
It should be noted that our experts stress that not all Federal
agencies and sectors are key cyber players.
No. 4, acknowledge we are in a cyber war with criminal and
adversarial nations. Publicize the severity of prior attacks
and raise awareness that we are constantly under attack.
No. 5, create or designate an accountable operational
cybersecurity organization. White House-led is not the silver
bullet, and DHS has a troubled reputation to overcome. Despite
tremendous capability, there are concerns about this being an
intelligence organization, because a secretive culture runs
counter to the need to partner with the private sector. Our
experts suggested a cyber defense organization. Clearly, there
was no consensus on where this organization should reside, and
this will be a tough policy question whether the best approach
is to create another organization and how.
No. 6, focus less on creating plans and more on
prioritizing, assessing and securing cyber assets. We have
created many plans that largely go unused. We need to create a
prioritized list of our Nation's cyber assets and work toward
securing them.
No. 7, bolster public/private partnerships by providing
more incentives for private sector participation.
No. 8, focus greater attention on the global aspects of
cyberspace. We should work toward an international global cyber
strategy and use international agreements to focus
cybersecurity issues and thwart cyber crime, like the Council
of Europe's cyber crime convention.
No. 9, modernize our legal framework to better address
cyber criminals. Domestic and international law is outdated and
it needs to be revised to make it easier to catch and prosecute
criminals.
No. 10, better coordinate Government and private sector
cyber R&D. Cyber R&D is underfunded and not coordinated.
No. 11, increase the number of skilled cyber professionals,
including criminal investigators. Experts suggested that the
cybersecurity discipline should be a profession that is
licensed.
No. 12, make the Federal Government a model for
cybersecurity. The CNCI initiative is a good first step, but
the Federal Government has much room for improvement.
In summary, Madam Chairwoman, many large cybersecurity
policy questions loom for the Obama administration and the
Congress. GAO, CSIS and our expert panel recommendations need
to be strongly considered as the game plan is defined over the
next several months to provide a more secure cyber America.
This concludes my statement, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Powner
March 10, 2009
gao highlights
Highlights of GAO-09-432T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, Committee
on Homeland Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
Pervasive and sustained computer-based (cyber) attacks against
Federal and private-sector infrastructures pose a potentially
devastating impact to systems and operations and the critical
infrastructures that they support. To address these threats, President
Bush issued a 2003 national strategy and related policy directives
aimed at improving cybersecurity Nation-wide. Congress and the
Executive branch, including the new administration, have subsequently
taken actions to examine the adequacy of the strategy and identify
areas for improvement. Nevertheless, GAO has identified this area as
high-risk and has reported on needed improvements in implementing the
national cybersecurity strategy.
In this testimony, you asked GAO to summarize: (1) Key reports and
recommendations on the national cybersecurity strategy, and (2) the
views of experts on how to strengthen the strategy. In doing so, GAO
relied on its previous reports related to the strategy and conducted
panel discussions with key cybersecurity experts to solicit their views
on areas for improvement.
What GAO Recommends
GAO has previously made about 30 recommendations, mostly directed
at DHS, to improve our Nation's cybersecurity strategy efforts. DHS in
large part has concurred with GAO's recommendations and, in many cases,
has actions planned and under way to implement them.
national cybersecurity strategy.--key improvements are needed to
strengthen the nation's posture
What GAO Found
Over the last several years, GAO has consistently reported that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has yet to fully satisfy its
responsibilities designated by the national cybersecurity strategy. To
address these shortfalls, GAO has made about 30 recommendations in key
cybersecurity areas including the 5 listed in the table below. While
DHS has since developed and implemented certain capabilities to satisfy
aspects of its cybersecurity responsibilities, it still has not fully
satisfied the recommendations, and thus further action needs to be
taken to fully address these areas.
TABLE 1.--KEY CYBERSECURITY AREAS IDENTIFIED BY GAO AS NEEDING FURTHER
ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ Bolstering cyber analysis and
warning capabilities.
2........................................ Completing actions identified
during cyber exercises.
3........................................ Improving cybersecurity of
infrastructure control
systems.
4........................................ Strengthening DHS's ability
to help recover from
internet disruptions.
5........................................ Addressing cybercrime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of prior GAO reports.
In discussing the areas addressed by GAO's recommendations as well
as other critical aspects of the strategy, GAO's panel of cybersecurity
experts identified 12 key areas requiring improvement (see table
below). GAO found these to be largely consistent with its reports and
its extensive research and experience in the area.
TABLE 2.--KEY STRATEGY IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY CYBERSECURITY EXPERTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ Develop a national strategy
that clearly articulates
strategic objectives, goals,
and priorities.
2........................................ Establish White House
responsibility and
accountability for leading
and overseeing national
cybersecurity policy.
3........................................ Establish a governance
structure for strategy
implementation.
4........................................ Publicize and raise awareness
about the seriousness of the
cybersecurity problem.
5........................................ Create an accountable,
operational cybersecurity
organization.
6........................................ Focus more actions on
prioritizing assets,
assessing vulnerabilities,
and reducing vulnerabilities
than on developing
additional plans.
7........................................ Bolster public/private
partnerships through an
improved value proposition
and use of incentives.
8........................................ Focus greater attention on
addressing the global
aspects of cyberspace.
9........................................ Improve law enforcement
efforts to address malicious
activities in cyberspace.
10....................................... Place greater emphasis on
cybersecurity research and
development, including
consideration of how to
better coordinate Government
and private sector efforts.
11....................................... Increase the cadre of
cybersecurity professionals.
12....................................... Make the Federal Government a
model for cybersecurity,
including using its
acquisition function to
enhance cybersecurity
aspects of products and
services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of opinions solicited during expert panels.
Until GAO's recommendations are fully addressed and the above
improvements are considered, our Nation's Federal and private-sector
infrastructure systems remain at risk of not being adequately
protected. Consequently, in addition to fully implementing GAO's
recommendations, it is essential that the improvements be considered by
the new administration as it begins to make decisions on our Nation's
cybersecurity strategy.
Madam Chair and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to join in today's hearing to discuss efforts to protect
our Nation from cybersecurity threats. Pervasive and sustained
computer-based (cyber) attacks against the United States and others
continue to pose a potentially devastating impact to systems and
operations and the critical infrastructures that they support. To
address these threats, President Bush issued a 2003 national strategy
and related policy directives aimed at improving cybersecurity Nation-
wide, including both Government systems and those cyber critical
infrastructures owned and operated by the private sector.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Critical infrastructures are systems and assets, whether
physical or virtual, so vital to nations that their incapacity or
destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security,
national economic security, national public health or safety, or any
combination of those matters. Federal policy established 18 critical
infrastructure sectors: Agriculture and food, banking and finance,
chemical, commercial facilities, communications, critical
manufacturing, dams, defense industrial base, emergency services,
energy, Government facilities, information technology, national
monuments and icons, nuclear reactors, materials and waste, postal and
shipping, public health and health care, transportation systems, and
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the threats have persisted and grown, a commission--
commonly referred to as the Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th
Presidency and chaired by two congressmen and industry officials--was
established in August 2007 to examine the adequacy of the strategy and
identify areas for improvement.\2\ At about the same time, the Bush
administration began to implement a series of initiatives aimed
primarily at improving cybersecurity within the Federal Government.
More recently, in February 2009, President Obama initiated a review of
the Government's overall cybersecurity strategy and supporting
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The commission was created by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a bipartisan, nonprofit organization
that, among other things, provides strategic insights and policy
solutions to decision-makers. Entitled the CSIS Commission on
Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, the body was co-chaired by
Representative James Langevin, Representative Michael McCaul, Scott
Charney (Microsoft), and Lt. General Harry Raduege, USAF (Ret).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, as requested, I will discuss: (1) Our reports, containing
about 30 recommendations, on the national cybersecurity strategy and
related efforts, and (2) the results of expert panels we convened to
discuss how to strengthen the strategy and our Nation's cybersecurity
posture. In preparing for this testimony, we relied on our previous
reports on Federal efforts to fulfill national cybersecurity
responsibilities. These reports contain detailed overviews of the scope
and methodology we used. We also obtained the views of nationally
recognized cybersecurity experts by means of two panel discussions on
the effectiveness of the current national cybersecurity strategy and
recommendations for improvement. In summarizing the panel discussions,
we provided all panel members an opportunity to comment on our written
summaries, and their comments were incorporated as appropriate. The
panelists' names and titles are in appendix I. We conducted our work in
support of this testimony during February and March 2009, in the
Washington, DC, area. The work on which this testimony is based was
performed in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing
standards.
background
Government officials are concerned about attacks from individuals
and groups with malicious intent, such as criminals, terrorists, and
adversarial foreign nations. For example, in February 2009, the
director of national intelligence testified that foreign nations and
criminals have targeted Government and private sector networks to gain
a competitive advantage and potentially disrupt or destroy them, and
that terrorist groups have expressed a desire to use cyber attacks as a
means to target the United States.\3\ The director also discussed that
in August 2008, the national government of Georgia's Web sites were
disabled during hostilities with Russia, which hindered the
Government's ability to communicate its perspective about the conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of the Director of National Intelligence before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of
the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (Feb. 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government has developed a strategy to address such
cyber threats. Specifically, President Bush issued the 2003 National
Strategy to Secure Cyberspace \4\ and related policy directives, such
as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7,\5\ that specify key
elements of how the Nation is to secure key computer-based systems,
including both Government systems and those that support critical
infrastructures owned and operated by the private sector. The strategy
and related policies also establish the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) as the focal point for cyber CIP and assign the Department
multiple leadership roles and responsibilities in this area. They
include: (1) Developing a comprehensive national plan for CIP,
including cybersecurity; (2) developing and enhancing national cyber
analysis and warning capabilities; (3) providing and coordinating
incident response and recovery planning, including conducting incident
response exercises; (4) identifying, assessing, and supporting efforts
to reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities, including those associated
with infrastructure control systems;\6\ and (5) strengthening
international cyberspace security. In addition, the strategy and
related policy direct DHS and other relevant stakeholders to use risk
management principles to prioritize protection activities within and
across the 18 critical infrastructure sectors in an integrated,
coordinated fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The White House, The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace
(Washington, DC: February 2003).
\5\ The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7
(Washington, DC: Dec. 17, 2003).
\6\ Control systems are computer-based systems that perform vital
functions in many of our Nation's critical infrastructures, including
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution; oil and gas
refining and pipelines; water treatment and distribution; chemical
production and processing; railroads and mass transit; and
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the threats have persisted and grown, President Bush in
January 2008 began to implement a series of initiatives--commonly
referred to as the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative
(CNCI)--aimed primarily at improving DHS and other Federal agencies'
efforts to protect against intrusion attempts and anticipate future
threats.\7\ While these initiatives have not been made public, the
Director of National Intelligence stated that they include defensive,
offensive, research and development, and counterintelligence efforts,
as well as a project to improve public/private partnerships.\8\
Subsequently, in December 2008, the Commission on Cybersecurity for the
44th Presidency reported, among other things, that the failure to
protect cyberspace was an urgent national security problem and made 25
recommendations aimed at addressing shortfalls with the strategy and
its implementation.\9\ Since then, President Obama (in February 2009)
initiated a review of the cybersecurity strategy and supporting
activities. The review is scheduled to be completed in April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The White House, National Security Presidential Directive 54/
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 (Washington, DC: Jan. 8,
2008).
\8\ Statement of the director of national intelligence before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of
the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (Feb. 12, 2009).
\9\ Center for Strategic and International Studies, Securing
Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency, A Report of the CSIS Commission on
Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency (Washington, DC: December 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
gao has made recommendations to address shortfalls with key aspects of
national cybersecurity strategy and its implementation
Over the last several years we have reported on our Nation's
efforts to fulfill essential aspects of its cybersecurity strategy. In
particular, we have reported consistently since 2005 that DHS has yet
to fully satisfy its cybersecurity responsibilities designated by the
strategy. To address these shortfalls, we have made about 30
recommendations in key cybersecurity areas including the 5 listed in
Table 1. DHS has since developed and implemented certain capabilities
to satisfy aspects of its cybersecurity responsibilities, but the
Department still has not fully satisfied our recommendations, and thus
further action needs to be taken to address these areas.
TABLE 1.--KEY CYBERSECURITY AREAS IDENTIFIED BY GAO AS NEEDING FURTHER
ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ Bolstering cyber analysis and
warning capabilities.
2........................................ Completing actions identified
during cyber exercises.
3........................................ Improving cybersecurity of
infrastructure control
systems.
4........................................ Strengthening DHS's ability
to help recover from
internet disruptions.
5........................................ Addressing cybercrime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of prior GAO reports.
In July 2008, we reported \10\ that DHS's United States Computer
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) did not fully address 15 key cyber
analysis and warning attributes related to: (1) Monitoring network
activity to detect anomalies, (2) analyzing information and
investigating anomalies to determine whether they are threats, (3)
warning appropriate officials with timely and actionable threat and
mitigation information, and (4) responding to the threat. For example,
US-CERT provided warnings by developing and distributing a wide array
of notifications; however, these notifications were not consistently
actionable or timely. As a result, we recommended that the Department
address shortfalls associated with the 15 attributes in order to fully
establish a national cyber analysis and warning capability as
envisioned in the national strategy. DHS agreed in large part with our
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO, Cyber Analysis and Warning: DHS Faces Challenges in
Establishing a Comprehensive National Capability, GAO-08-588
(Washington, DC: July 31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, we reported \11\ that since conducting a major
cyber attack exercise, called Cyber Storm, DHS had demonstrated
progress in addressing eight lessons it had learned from these efforts.
However, its actions to address the lessons had not been fully
implemented. Specifically, while it had completed 42 of the 66
activities identified, the Department had identified 16 activities as
on-going and 7 as planned for the future.\12\ Consequently, we
recommended that DHS schedule and complete all of the corrective
activities identified in order to strengthen coordination between
public and private sector participants in response to significant cyber
incidents. DHS concurred with our recommendation. To date, DHS has
continued to make progress in completing some identified activities but
has yet to do so for others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: DHS Needs To Fully
Address Lessons Learned From Its First Cyber Storm Exercise, GAO-08-825
(Washington, DC: Sept. 9, 2008).
\12\ At that time, DHS reported that one other activity had been
completed, but the Department was unable to provide evidence
demonstrating its completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a September 2007 report and an October 2007 testimony, we
reported \13\ that consistent with the national strategy requirement to
identify and reduce threats and vulnerabilities, DHS was sponsoring
multiple control systems security initiatives, including an effort to
improve control systems cybersecurity using vulnerability evaluation
and response tools. However, DHS had not established a strategy to
coordinate the various control systems activities across Federal
agencies and the private sector, and it did not effectively share
information on control system vulnerabilities with the public and
private sectors. Accordingly, we recommended that DHS develop a
strategy to guide efforts for securing control systems and establish a
rapid and secure process for sharing sensitive control system
vulnerability information. DHS recently began developing a strategy and
a process to share sensitive information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Multiple Efforts to
Secure Control Systems Are Under Way, but Challenges Remain, GAO-07-
1036 (Washington, DC: Sept. 10, 2007) and Critical Infrastructure
Protection: Multiple Efforts to Secure Control Systems Are Under Way,
but Challenges Remain, GAO-08-119T (Washington, DC: Oct. 17, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reported and later testified \14\ in 2006 that the Department
had begun a variety of initiatives to fulfill its responsibility, as
called for by the national strategy, for developing an integrated
public/private plan for Internet recovery. However, we determined that
these efforts were not comprehensive or complete. As such, we
recommended that DHS implement nine actions to improve the Department's
ability to facilitate public/private efforts to recover the internet in
case of a major disruption. In October 2007, we testified \15\ that the
Department had made progress in implementing our recommendations;
however, seven of the nine have not been completed. To date, an
integrated public/private plan for internet recovery does not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Internet Infrastructure: DHS Faces Challenges in
Developing a Joint Public/Private Recovery Plan, GAO-06-672
(Washington, DC: June 16, 2006) and Internet Infrastructure: Challenges
in Developing a Public/Private Recovery Plan, GAO-06-863T (Washington,
DC: July 28, 2006).
\15\ GAO, Internet Infrastructure: Challenges in Developing a
Public/Private Recovery Plan, GAO-08-212T (Washington, DC: Oct. 23,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, we reported \16\ that public and private entities \17\
faced a number of challenges in addressing cybercrime, including
ensuring adequate analytical and technical capabilities for law
enforcement and conducting investigations and prosecuting cybercrimes
that cross national and State borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ GAO, Cybercrime: Public and Private Entities Face Challenges
in Addressing Cyber Threats, GAO-07-705 (Washington, DC: June 2007).
\17\ These public and private entities include the Departments of
Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense, and the Federal Trade
Commission, internet security providers and software developers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cybersecurity experts highlighted key improvements needed to strengthen
the nation's cybersecurity posture
In addition to our recommendations on improving key aspects of the
national cybersecurity strategy and its implementation, we also
obtained the views of experts (by means of panel discussions) on these
and other critical aspects of the strategy, including areas for
improvement. The experts, who included former Federal officials,
academics, and private sector executives, highlighted 12 key
improvements that are, in their view, essential to improving the
strategy and our national cybersecurity posture. These improvements are
in large part consistent with our above-mentioned reports and extensive
research and experience in this area. They include:
1. Develop a national strategy that clearly articulates strategic
objectives, goals, and priorities.--The strategy should, among other
things: (1) Include well-defined strategic objectives, (2) provide
understandable goals for the Government and the private sector (end
game), (3) articulate cyber priorities among the objectives, (4)
provide a vision of what secure cyberspace should be in the future, (5)
seek to integrate Federal Government capabilities, (6) establish
metrics to gauge whether progress is being made against the strategy,
and (7) provide an effective means for enforcing action and
accountability when there are progress shortfalls. According to expert
panel members, the CNCI provides a good set of tactical initiatives
focused on improving primarily Federal cybersecurity; however, it does
not provide strategic objectives, goals, and priorities for the Nation
as a whole.
2. Establish White House responsibility and accountability for
leading and overseeing national cybersecurity policy.--The strategy
makes DHS the focal point for cybersecurity; however, according to
expert panel members, DHS has not met expectations and has not provided
the high-level leadership needed to raise cybersecurity to a national
focus. Accordingly, panelists stated that to be successful and to send
the message to the Nation and cyber critical infrastructure owners that
cybersecurity is a priority, this leadership role needs to be elevated
to the White House. In addition, to be effective, the office must have,
among other things, commensurate authority--for example, over budgets
and resources--to implement and employ appropriate incentives to
encourage action.
3. Establish a governance structure for strategy implementation.--
The strategy establishes a public/private partnership governance
structure that includes 18 critical infrastructure sectors,
corresponding Government and sector coordinating councils, and cross-
sector councils. However, according to panelists, this structure is
Government-centric and largely relies on personal relationships to
instill trust to share information and take action. In addition,
although all sectors are not of equal importance in regard to their
cyber assets and functions, the structure treats all sectors and all
critical cyber assets and functions equally. To ensure effective
strategy implementation, experts stated that the partnership structure
should include a committee of senior government representatives (for
example, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State,
and the Treasury and the White House) and private sector leaders
representing the most critical cyber assets and functions. Expert panel
members also suggested that this committee's responsibilities should
include measuring and periodically reporting on progress in achieving
the goals, objectives, and strategic priorities established in the
national strategy and building consensus to hold involved parties
accountable when there are progress shortfalls.
4. Publicize and raise awareness about the seriousness of the
cybersecurity problem.--Although the strategy establishes cyberspace
security awareness as a priority, experts stated that many national
leaders in business and Government, including in Congress, who can
invest resources to address cybersecurity problems are generally not
aware of the severity of the risks to national and economic security
posed by the inadequacy of our Nation's cybersecurity posture and the
associated intrusions made more likely by that posture. Expert panel
members suggested that an aggressive awareness campaign is needed to
raise the level of knowledge of leaders and the general populace that
our Nation is constantly under cyber attack.
5. Create an accountable, operational cybersecurity organization.--
DHS established the National Cyber Security Division (within the Office
of Cybersecurity and Communications) to be responsible for leading
national day-to-day cybersecurity efforts; however, according to
panelists, this has not enabled DHS to become the national focal point
as envisioned. Panel members stated that currently, DOD and other
organizations within the intelligence community that have significant
resources and capabilities have come to dominate Federal efforts. They
told us that there also needs to be an independent cybersecurity
organization that leverages and integrates the capabilities of the
private sector, civilian government, law enforcement, military,
intelligence community, and the Nation's international allies to
address incidents against the Nation's critical cyber systems and
functions. However, there was not consensus among our expert panel
members regarding where this organization should reside.
6. Focus more actions on prioritizing assets and functions,
assessing vulnerabilities, and reducing vulnerabilities than on
developing additional plans.--The strategy recommends actions to
identify critical cyber assets and functions, but panelists stated that
efforts to identify which cyber assets and functions are most critical
to the Nation have been insufficient. According to panel members,
inclusion in cyber critical infrastructure protection efforts and lists
of critical assets are currently based on the willingness of the person
or entity responsible for the asset or function to participate and not
on substantiated technical evidence. In addition, the current strategy
establishes vulnerability reduction as a key priority; however,
according to panelists, efforts to identify and mitigate known
vulnerabilities have been insufficient. They stated that greater
efforts should be taken to identify and eliminate common
vulnerabilities and that there are techniques available that should be
used to assess vulnerabilities in the most critical, prioritized cyber
assets and functions.
7. Bolster public/private partnerships through an improved value
proposition and use of incentives.--While the strategy encourages
action by owners and operators of critical cyber assets and functions,
panel members stated that there are not adequate economic and other
incentives (i.e., a value proposition) for greater investment and
partnering in cybersecurity. Accordingly, panelists stated that the
Federal Government should provide valued services (such as offering
useful threat or analysis and warning information) or incentives (such
as grants or tax reductions) to encourage action by and effective
partnerships with the private sector. They also suggested that public
and private sector entities use means such as cost-benefit analyses to
ensure the efficient use of limited cybersecurity-related resources.
8. Focus greater attention on addressing the global aspects of
cyberspace.--The strategy includes recommendations to address the
international aspects of cyberspace but, according to panelists, the
United States is not addressing global issues impacting how cyberspace
is governed and controlled. They added that, while other nations are
actively involved in developing treaties, establishing standards, and
pursuing international agreements (such as on privacy), the United
States is not aggressively working in a coordinated manner to ensure
that international agreements are consistent with U.S. practice and
that they address cybersecurity and cybercrime considerations. Panel
members stated that the United States should pursue a more coordinated,
aggressive approach so that there is a level playing field globally for
U.S. corporations and enhanced cooperation among government agencies,
including law enforcement. In addition, a panelist stated that the
United States should work towards building consensus on a global cyber
strategy.
9. Improve law enforcement efforts to address malicious activities
in cyberspace.--The strategy calls for improving investigative
coordination domestically and internationally and promoting a common
agreement among nations on addressing cybercrime. According to a
panelist, some improvements in domestic law have been made (e.g.,
enactment of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008), but implementation
of this act is a work in process due to its recent passage. Panel
members also stated that current domestic and international law
enforcement efforts, including activities, procedures, methods, and
laws are too outdated and outmoded to adequately address the speed,
sophistication, and techniques of individuals and groups, such as
criminals, terrorists, and adversarial foreign nations with malicious
intent. An improved law enforcement is essential to more effectively
catch and prosecute malicious individuals and groups and, with stricter
penalties, deter malicious behavior.
10. Place greater emphasis on cybersecurity research and
development, including consideration of how to better coordinate
Government and private sector efforts.--While the strategy recommends
actions to develop a research and development agenda and coordinate
efforts between the Government and private sectors, experts stated that
the United States is not adequately focusing and funding research and
development efforts to address cybersecurity or to develop the next
generation of cyberspace to include effective security capabilities. In
addition, the research and development efforts currently underway are
not being well coordinated between Government and the private sector.
11. Increase the cadre of cybersecurity professionals.--The
strategy includes efforts to increase the number and skills of
cybersecurity professionals but, according to panelists, the results
have not created sufficient numbers of professionals, including
information security specialists and cybercrime investigators. Expert
panel members stated that actions to increase the number professionals
with adequate cybersecurity skills should include: (1) Enhancing
existing scholarship programs (e.g., Scholarship for Service) and (2)
making the cybersecurity discipline a profession through testing and
licensing.
12. Make the Federal Government a model for cybersecurity,
including using its acquisition function to enhance cybersecurity
aspects of products and services.--The strategy establishes securing
the Government's cyberspace as a key priority and advocates using
Federal acquisition to accomplish this goal. Although the Federal
Government has taken steps to improve the cybersecurity of agencies
(e.g., beginning to implement the CNCI initiatives), panelists stated
that it still is not a model for cybersecurity. Further, they said the
Federal Government has not made changes in its acquisition function and
the training of Government officials in a manner that effectively
improves the cybersecurity capabilities of products and services
purchased and used by Federal agencies.
In summary, our Nation is under cyber attack, and the present
strategy and its implementation have not been fully effective in
mitigating the threat. This is due in part to the fact that there are
further actions needed by DHS to address key cybersecurity areas,
including fully addressing our recommendations. In addition, nationally
recognized experts have identified improvements aimed at strengthening
the strategy and in turn, our cybersecurity posture. Key improvements
include developing a national strategy that clearly articulates
strategic objectives, goals, and priorities; establishing White House
leadership; improving governance; and creating a capable and respected
operational lead organization. Until the recommendations are fully
addressed and these improvements are considered, our Nation's most
critical Federal and private sector infrastructure systems remain at
unnecessary risk to attack from our adversaries. Consequently, in
addition to fully implementing our recommendations, it is essential
that the Obama administration consider these improvements as it reviews
our Nation's cybersecurity strategy and begins to make decisions on
moving forward.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or Members of the subcommittee may have
at this time.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony,
please contact me. Other key contributors to this testimony include
Bradley Becker, Camille Chaires, Michael Gilmore, Nancy Glover, Kush
Malhotra, Gary Mountjoy, Lee McCracken, and Andrew Stavisky.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much.
Our next witness, I now recognize Mr. Charney to summarize
his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CHARNEY, VICE PRESIDENT, TRUSTWORTHY
COMPUTING, MICROSOFT
Mr. Charney. Chairwoman Clark, Ranking Member Lungren, Mr.
Thompson and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to provide a perspective on
reviewing the Federal Cybersecurity Mission. As you know, I
served as one of four co-chairs of the CSIS Commission on
Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency with Representatives Jim
Langevin of Rhode Island and Michael McCaul of Texas and
General Harry Raduege.
I will address four themes that cross many of the
recommendations made in the Commission's report.
First, we have an immediate need for a comprehensive White
House Coordinated National Strategy for Cyber Space Security.
Second, we need to to evolve and focus the public/private
partnership model.
Third, we should consider a new regulatory model designed
to ensure that greater regulation, if enacted, protects
innovation while providing appropriate Government oversight of
cybersecurity issues.
Fourth, the internet needs an appropriately deployed
identity metasystem, if we are to make the internet
dramatically more secure but protect important social values
such as privacy and free speech. I will address each of these
in turn.
First, the need for a Comprehensive and Coordinated
National Strategy could not be more clear. In the information
age, a country's success is dependent upon information,
knowledge, and communications. While the growth of the internet
in the early 1990's created new beneficial opportunities for
all, including individuals, businesses, and governments, it
also created unprecedented opportunities for those who would
misuse technology. It permits individual criminals, organized
crime groups, and nation-states to target all types of
sensitive information, from personal information to business
information to military information.
It is therefore clear that our country's future success
requires a Comprehensive Cybersecurity Strategy that engages
the relevant agencies of the Government and brings to bear all
elements of national power including economic, diplomatic, law
enforcement, military, and intelligence authorities.
When one recognizes the breadth of the challenge, and the
need for a massively decentralized but coordinated response
among the Federal agencies, it becomes clear that our National
Cybersecurity Strategy and its implementation should be led by
the White House. Of course, any successful strategy must
include protecting one's own networks from attack. Here it is
critical that the Government and private sector work together
to improve the state of computer security. Why is partnership
required? It is because the private sector drives the design,
development, and implementation of the products and services
that power cyberspace.
We must also have the right objectives. For years the goal
of the partnership has been information sharing which will not,
without more, secure America's infrastructures. We must
establish a more meaningful public/private partnership where
the partners work in complementary fashion toward the clearly
identified objective of securing America's networks. Consistent
with this philosophy the partnership should focus on sharing
information that is actionable and building mechanisms that
enable meaningful action to be taken.
With regard to regulation, the Government and private
sector should jointly determine the level of security provided
by markets, the level of security needed to protect national
security, and how the gap between what the markets will provide
and what national security demands can be filled most
effectively.
While this is not a call for broad regulation, it is a
recognition that appropriately tailored legislation,
legislation that is technology-neutral and recognizes the best
practices created by the innovative private sector may be an
important component of any national cybersecurity effort. The
fact is, markets respond to customer demand, and most customers
know more security issues today than in the past will not pay
for the level of security necessary to protect national
security. In short, establishing a cohesive national strategy,
a robust public/private partnership and a security model that
takes advantage of industry best practices, Government
influence, and tailored regulations can dramatically advance
security.
Finally, creating the ability to identify what person and
which device is sending a particular data stream in cyberspace
must be part of an effective cybersecurity strategy. Even
sophisticated attackers face difficult challenges and find
their access restricted because of better authentication.
Stronger authentication can also help us create safe places for
our children to learn on-line, for businesses to interact with
customers, and for Government to serve its citizens.
In addition, because the use of digital IDs also reduces
the need to authenticate people by having them provide private
details about themselves, stronger authentication can enhance
both security and privacy. Thus, as part of an overall
cybersecurity strategy, the Government should accelerate the
adoption of authentication technologies by actions such as
issuing and accepting digital credentials in appropriate
circumstances and working to integrate privacy issues into the
design, development, and operation of the resulting identity
metasystem.
In conclusion, let me say there are complex challenges that
obviously will not be solved overnight. Securing America's
future in the information age depends upon creating a
comprehensive national strategy for cyberspace security, one
that simplifies, organizes, and enables effective operational
partnerships among the Government, private sector, and internet
citizens. There is both an opportunity and a need for
leadership as we focus the Nation's attentions on the
importance of cybersecurity.
I thank this committee for raising this important issue,
for considering my written testimony as part of the record, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Charney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Charney
March 10, 2009
Chairwoman Clark, Ranking Member Lungren, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today at this
important hearing on cybersecurity. My name is Scott Charney, and I am
the corporate vice president for trustworthy computing at Microsoft. I
served as one of four co-chairs of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies' (CSIS) Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th
Presidency. I served on the Commission as an industry expert with more
than 18 years of security technology experience in both the public and
private sectors, and have a long history of leading domestic and
international cybersecurity efforts.
Prior to joining Microsoft, I was chief of the computer crime and
intellectual property section in the criminal division of the U.S.
Department of Justice. I was involved in nearly every major hacker
prosecution in the United States from 1991 to 1999, worked on
legislative initiatives, such as the National Information
Infrastructure Protection Act that was enacted in 1996, and chaired the
G8 Subgroup on High Tech Crime from its inception in 1996 until I left
Government service in 1999.
Representative Jim Langevin (D-RI), Representative Michael McCaul
(R-TX), Lt. Gen. Harry Raduege, USAF (Ret.), and I led the CSIS
Commission effort, along with project director Jim Lewis of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, to identify key cybersecurity
challenges facing the new administration and provide a set of
recommendations to address those challenges. Guided by our
Congressional co-chairs, we assembled a group of individuals with
cybersecurity experience in both Government and industry. The aim of
the group was to identify both short-term recommendations that the next
administration could implement quickly to make a noticeable improvement
in the Nation's cybersecurity, and longer-term recommendations that are
critical to the Nation's future cyber-objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide a
perspective on ``Reviewing the Federal Cybersecurity Mission.'' I would
like to address four specific themes that cross the Commission
recommendations including: (1) The need for a comprehensive and
coordinated national strategy for cyberspace security; (2) the
imperative to radically evolve and elevate the public-private
partnership model; (3) the need for an identity metasystem that makes
the internet dramatically more secure while protecting important social
values such as privacy and free speech; and (4) the necessity for a new
regulatory model that protects innovation while providing appropriate
Government oversight.
comprehensive and coordinated national strategy
As the CSIS Commission report makes clear, we are locked in an
escalating and sometimes hidden conflict in cyberspace. The battle of
bits and bytes has very real consequences for America, other nations,
the private sector, and even what we have come to call ``the internet
citizen.'' Cyberattack joins terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
as one of the new, asymmetric threats that puts the United States and
its allies at risk. To be clear, there are risks to cyberspace other
than those related to security; for example, the increasing number of
machines and applications creates a very complex environment with
challenging reliability issues, and our increased dependence on
information technology makes the availability of systems a national and
international imperative. But for the purposes of this testimony, I
will confine my remarks to security.
The information age has arrived, but the United States has not yet
built a comprehensive national cyberspace security strategy. The need
for such a strategy has never been more urgent. America's leadership in
a connected world cannot be assumed from its leadership in the
industrial world. In cyberspace, the country does not remain
unchallenged, as recent events have clearly proved. Some of the
challenges we face include:
America's reliance on interdependent global networks;
The misuse of information technologies to support violent
extremism;
The ability of any individual to engage in activities
formerly limited to nation-states (e.g., cyber-military
espionage and cyber-warfare); and
The ability of any nation, regardless of traditional
measures of sophistication, to gain economic and military
advantage through cyber programs.
In addition to these challenges, the Internet citizen--those
individuals who use cyberspace for social and commercial interactions--
is critically relevant to any solution. Unsecured computers can turn
everyday users into a launch platform for attacks. Fear about on-line
security and availability can have sweeping economic consequences.
Trust in cyberspace, on the other hand, can create new opportunities,
markets, and possibilities.
The United States must plan, organize, and act accordingly to
develop a national cyberspace security strategy that can address these
challenges. Historically, national security strategies have been
characterized by their employment of all elements of U.S. power--
economic, diplomatic, law enforcement, military and intelligence. A
comprehensive cyberspace security strategy must include these elements
and articulate how they will be employed to ensure national security
and public safety, ensure economic prosperity, and assure delivery of
critical services to the American public. Such a strategy must also
recognize the ever-mounting importance of economic security. In the
industrial age, power was generally based on physical might; in the
information age, power is derived from information, knowledge, and
communications.
In my opinion, there are three fundamental attributes that span all
of the elements of national power. Articulating and advancing a clear
understanding of norms, attribution, and deterrence in the context of
cybersecurity can dramatically improve the national and international
cyberspace ecosystem.
Norms.--U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic engagements on issues
related to cyberspace security are not as focused as our
efforts to combat terrorism or stem proliferation of nuclear
weapons. I believe that the United States should marshal its
significant diplomatic skills and expertise to advocate for
cyberspace security and increase multilateral cooperation. I
would caution that advocacy and cooperation are not goals in
themselves. We need to focus advocacy and cooperation efforts
toward specific outcomes. For example, working with like-minded
nations to define clearly articulated norms of nation-state
behavior in cyberspace could help to deter state support for
cyberattacks or hold nation-states that support such efforts
accountable for their actions.
Attribution.--Attribution of cyberattacks is one of the most
fundamental challenges facing the international community and
the United States. The inability to attribute attacks can
greatly impede the effectiveness of the Nation's response. Too
often, valuable time is lost trying to determine if an attack
or penetration of a system was an isolated criminal incident or
one perpetrated by a foreign intelligence organization.
Attributing the source is essential to ensuring the
appropriateness of response--criminal prosecution or military/
diplomatic measures. Absent strong attribution abilities,
international and national strategies to deter acts will not be
taken seriously by the community of attackers who thrive on
this diagnostic weakness, nor by criminals that prey on
citizens' inboxes and on-line accounts. Thus, we must focus on
identity and authentication in cyberspace and enhancing swift
international cooperation on cyberattacks.
Deterrence.--Deterrence did not happen overnight in the Cold War;
the concept and strategy took several years to develop.
Deterrence in the information age is perhaps even more
complicated due to the lack of attribution and the inability to
identify strong mechanisms to prevent hostile actions. But the
United States can learn important lessons from the nuclear
experience. In the Cold War, the United States kept sensitive
information secret, but disclosed enough about our strategy and
capabilities that allies and adversaries alike understood our
commitment to national security and our ability to protect it.
We must do the same for cyberspace.
Deterrence is very difficult when adversaries and bad actors are
motivated and persistent. In order to improve cyberspace
security in a meaningful way, deterrence requires a clear and
unambiguous commitment by our Nation and understanding by the
spectrum of bad actors--from cybercriminals, to organized
crime, to nation-states--that violations of our cybersecurity
have consequences. What makes deterrence successful is
commitment, broadly known and broadly felt.
The sheer number of extremely important issues that transcend
agency boundaries suggests that the coordination of any national
cybersecurity strategy must reside within the one organization
responsible for ensuring that the Government acts as one Government. If
the Government wants to use all the instruments of its power--economic,
diplomatic, law enforcement, military, and intelligence--then the
center of gravity must be in the White House. I support the
Commission's recommendations that, if implemented, would elevate the
priority of cybersecurity and improve its strategic coordination.
Creating a National Office for Cyberspace in the Executive Office of
the President will provide the interagency coordination required to
identify, assess, and manage cyberspace risks.
This office does not need to assume or manage all cybersecurity
functions; rather, it should have a tightly defined mandate to develop
strategy and coordinate the implementation of that strategy by the
agencies that have jurisdiction over the elements of national power. It
must also be recognized that the White House office will be best able
to provide strategic leadership only when the agencies of Government
responsible for executing their respective cybersecurity
responsibilities are staffed with experienced and competent
professionals who are resourced appropriately.
As you know, President Obama has directed the National Security
Council and Homeland Security Council to initiate a 60-day review of
the plans, programs, and activities under way throughout the Government
that address cyberspace security. According to the White House, the
review will build upon existing policies and structures to formulate a
new vision for a national public-private partnership and an action plan
to: Enhance economic prosperity and facilitate market leadership for
the U.S. information and communications industry; deter, prevent,
detect, defend against, respond to, and remediate disruptions and
damage to U.S. communications and information infrastructure; ensure
U.S. capabilities to operate in cyberspace in support of national
goals; and safeguard the privacy rights and civil liberties of our
citizens.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/02/Cyber-review-underway/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A successful cyberspace security strategy requires more than a plan
and an organization; it requires partnership. The private sector drives
the design, development, and implementation of the products and
services that power cyberspace. Our technical expertise and experience
in the global marketplace make us key partners in developing national
and international cyberspace security strategies. For more than a
decade, the Government and the private sector have partnered to address
various aspects of cybersecurity, but this partnership has not achieved
the robust results that are needed to protect cyberspace effectively.
Therefore, my next key recommendation is to redesign that partnership.
radically evolve public-private partnerships to advance cyberspace
security
Cyberspace security is a shared challenge and requires Government
and the private sector to work together. The private sector designs,
deploys, and maintains much of the Nation's critical infrastructure.
However, the private sector faces unique challenges because its
customer base and supply chains are global. It also builds commercial
products that can be targeted by sophisticated advisories, including
nation-states. Private sector firms are increasingly being forced to
think about security challenges that cannot reasonably be mitigated by
commercially realistic development practices, especially as users
remain price-sensitive.
The Government also faces challenges. Unlike certain other
traditional aspects of national security, cyberspace cannot be secured
by the Government alone; it requires a coordinated effort involving the
owners, operators, and vendors that make cyberspace possible. The
bifurcation of responsibility (the Government must protect national
security) and control (it does not manage the assets or provide the
functions that must be protected) dictates the need for a close
partnership with clearly defined roles and responsibilities that
optimizes the capabilities of participating stakeholders.
Since the 1990s, well-intended public-private partnerships have
been created to address this need, yielding a perplexing array of
advisory groups with overlapping missions, different stakeholders with
varying capabilities, insufficiently articulated roles and
responsibilities, and plans with literally hundreds upon hundreds of
recommendations. In the few instances where groups overcame
institutional adversities and developed meaningful recommendations, the
repeated unwillingness or inability to implement those recommendations
at the Federal level has damaged the partnership significantly. Absent
a comprehensive national strategy and clear purpose, both Government
and private sector stakeholders will continue to struggle to be
effective.
Advancing cyberspace security requires a radical evolution of
public-private partnerships as we currently know them. What does
radical evolution mean? The Federal Government and private sector
stakeholders must articulate a new philosophy for collaboration, one
that starts with a very simple premise: Government and private sector
efforts should be synergistic and efficient. This requires that the
Government and private sector: (1) Identify those security requirements
that will be fulfilled by the market; (2) identify national security
requirements; and (3) identify how the gap between market security and
national security can be filled. This effort must be focused on
protecting functions (e.g., communications) as opposed to simply
physical assets. Moreover, we must build operational partnerships that
let us effectively mitigate and respond to threats. Finally, to the
extent important work is on-going, the parties must identify what works
and have the courage to retire what does not, even though retiring
organizations may be viewed as draconian by those who have invested in
these efforts in the past.
As part of the evolution, it is important that the public-private
partnership concentrate on what is truly critical to cyberspace
security and build trusted and effective collaboration between
Government and private sector stakeholders.
What functions are critical?
The Commission identified four critical cyber-infrastructures:
Energy;
Finance;
Converging information technology and communications;\2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Outside the United States, this is referred to as the ICT
sector. See ``Telecommunications Task Group Final Report,'' CSIS
Cybersecurity Commission http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/
081028_telecomm_task_group.pdf, for more information on why ``the
boundary between information, information technology, and
telecommunications services has become almost indistinguishable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government services (including State and municipal
governments).
This is not to suggest that all these infrastructures are
identical. If power fails, the cascading effect is immediate and
significant; by contrast, the result of an attack on Government will
depend upon what Government service is affected. In essence, energy and
information technology and communications form the backbone of
cyberspace, and the availability of Government services and finance are
particularly important for national security. While other
infrastructures depend on cyberspace, an interruption of their
operations would not broadly affect cyberspace itself. If energy,
finance, the converging information technology and communications
networks, along with Government services, can continue to function as
intended while under attack, cyberspace will continue to support the
Nation. Thus, these infrastructures should be the focus of a more
attentive cyberspace security effort.
Trusted and Effective Collaboration
The majority of public-private partnership efforts to date have
focused on information sharing. While information sharing is important,
it cannot be--as it had been to date--the end goal; rather, we must
focus instead on sharing information that is actionable and then taking
action. The CSIS Commission recommended three new partnership groups to
advance beyond information sharing to enable trust and action. I will
focus my comments on the two that would most significantly and
immediately enhance our cybersecurity and resiliency by permitting
better strategy development and operational collaboration.
Evolve Strategic Presidential Advisory Bodies
Trust is the foundation of a successful partnership between
Government and the private sector. In the past few years, despite good
intentions on both sides, trust between Government and the private
sector has declined. Trust is built on personal relationships and in
small groups, with parity of stakeholders and demonstrated commitment.
Large, diffuse groups with floating engagements among a range of
participants are not conducive to building the level of dialogue that
promotes trust. When the President brings C-Level officers to the table
and addresses challenges in a trusted forum, he can drive a powerful
set of changes in the cyber-ecosystem. Advisory committees that engage
senior-level Government and private sector personnel, such as the
National Security and Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) and
the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), have served past
presidents well. However, the split between national security and
emergency preparedness communications and cybersecurity is artificial
and dangerous. In the information age, with its converged information
technology and communications infrastructure, the distinction between
these two groups creates overlap and limits progress on developing and
improving cyberspace security capabilities. Accordingly, the Commission
recommended establishing the President's Committee for Secure
Cyberspace to replace the NSTAC and NIAC.
In addition to establishing the proposed Committee for Secure
Cyberspace as a C-level membership organization operated under Federal
Advisory Committee Act, the administration should act to reform current
decision-making bodies in Government that do not have private sector
involvement. For example, the Joint Telecommunications Resources Board
(JTRB), which is chaired by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, consists of agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD),
the Department of Homeland Security, the General Services
Administration, and the Department of Commerce.\3\ The JTRB is
chartered to make decisions on how to prioritize telecommunications
resources in non-wartime crisis, yet absent an effective channel into
the private sector, the JTRB would be challenged to fulfill its
charter. Another parallel entity is the National Cyber Response
Coordination Group, an organization intended to help identify and
coordinate response to a cyber-based crisis. Unfortunately, this
interagency Government group does not have a meaningful way to engage
the private sector, thus limiting its strategic and tactical
effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Executive Order 12472, ``Assignment of National Security and
Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions,'' section 2(b)(3),
April 3, 1984, available at http://www.ncs.gov/library/policy_docs/
eo_12472.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create Operational Collaboration
Over the past 10 years, there have been several attempts to improve
operational coordination between and among key Government and private
sector stakeholders, but these have met with limited success. For
example, the private sector has invested and maintained information
sharing and analysis centers, but they are all too often ignored by
Government agencies. The Commission recommended creating a new
organization, the Center for Cybersecurity Operations (CCSO), to
address operational issues that affect cyber infrastructure.
I strongly support creating a more effective model for operational
collaboration to move us from the less effective partnerships of the
past to a more dynamic and collaborative self-governing approach
involving cybersecurity leaders from Government, industry, and
academia.
Collaboration is not about plans; it is about outcomes. To create
actual operational collaboration, we must learn from the experiences of
the past. Collaboration is more than information sharing and is more
than coordination; collaboration involves stakeholders working
together, jointly assessing operational risks, and developing and
implementing mitigation strategies. I would like to add to the
Commission recommendation and suggest that an effective collaboration
framework for public-private partnerships should include focused
efforts to:
Exchange technical data (at the unclassified level as much
as possible), with rules and mechanisms that permit both sides
to protect sensitive data;
Create global situational awareness to understand the state
of the computing ecosystem and events that may affect it;
Analyze the risks (threat, vulnerabilities, and
consequences) and develop mitigation strategies;
When necessary and consistent with their respective roles,
respond to threats; and
Develop cyber threat and risk analytics as a shared
discipline. For example, one could combine Government and
private sector information and then use the private sector's
expertise in analyzing large data sets in pseudonymous ways to
get new insights into computer security without raising privacy
concerns.
What needs to be accomplished over the long term, and the
operational mission, must be clear and articulated; the roles of
Government and industry must be well-defined; and all participants must
demonstrate commitment and continuity to achieve success. The goal is a
trusted and focused collaborative alliance for both strategy and
operations among the Government, academia, and the private sector.
take action today to create a more secure tomorrow
On-line collaboration, commerce, and, in some instances, public
safety depend on trust. Today the mechanisms to provide authentication
and attribution in cyberspace do not meet the needs of the internet
citizen, enterprises, or governments. The lack of trust stems in part
from our inability to manage on-line identities effectively and the
excessive reliance on voluntary efforts to close key gaps in security.
Identity Imperatives
In the context of national security, weak identification and
authentication limits an organization's ability to enforce security
policies to protect sensitive information and systems, and hinders
effective Government and industry response to cyber attacks. From an
economic security perspective, these weaknesses prevent internet users
from taking reasonable steps to protect themselves from dangerous
parties. Creating the ability to know reliably the person and/or device
that is sending a particular data stream in cyberspace must be part of
an effective cybersecurity strategy. Even sophisticated attackers face
difficult challenges--and find their access restricted--because of
better authentication.
This need for improved identity and authentication in cyberspace
has been documented in numerous forums, and Government and industry are
progressing on multiple initiatives to address it. For example, in the
United States, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's
(FFIEC) Guidance for Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment
has spurred the use of stronger authentication in online banking. The
experience of the DOD was that intrusion into its networks fell by more
than 50 percent when it implemented Common Access Cards (CAC). Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) (``Policy for a Common
Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors'') is
another U.S. authentication initiative which requires Federal agencies
to improve their identity and credentialing processes, using smart
cards to secure both physical and logical access to Federal facilities
and networks. These and other Federal initiatives have had success, but
it is often limited to the sector or domain for which they are
attempting to affect change.
Past efforts to radically improve identity management for
cybersecurity have not failed due to lack of awareness regarding the
problem, nor a lack of efforts to address it. Much more simply, there
are too many disparate efforts resulting in stove-piped policies and
technologies that conflict and compete with each other, instead of
driving toward a coordinated, interoperable, scalable security- and
privacy-sensitive solution. There is also, particularly in the consumer
sector, a serious ``chicken-and-egg'' problem: Consumers are not
interested in robust on-line identity tokens because Government and
commercial sites do not consume them, and Government and commercial
sites do not build technology to consume such tokens because, after
all, no consumer has them. I want to re-emphasize a point made earlier:
Any successful public-private partnership should start with the premise
that the Government should fill market gaps in security. Thus, as part
of an overall cybersecurity strategy, the Government should accelerate
the adoption of authentication technologies by supporting the creation
and use of digital credentials. This would include issuing and
accepting such credentials in appropriate circumstances, catalyzing the
private sector market for digital identities, and establishing the
appropriate governance structure for the issuance, use, revocation, and
destruction of digital credentials.
The use of digital IDs also reduces the need to authenticate people
by having them provide private details about themselves, known as
Personally Identifiable Information or PII. This usage would reduce the
need to transmit, store, and use private information to identify
individuals, thus increasing privacy and helping prevent crimes such as
identity theft. Stronger authentication, combined with appropriate
rules regarding the use of such authentication mechanisms, could
enhance both security and privacy.
I recognize that efforts to improve authentication raise sensitive
privacy and civil liberties issues, but it is possible to improve
authentication for critical functions without unduly compromising our
values.\4\ This can be done if we integrate privacy issues into the
design, development, and operation of the identity metasystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For more on this topic, including how the Government can ensure
privacy is protected in a better authenticated environment, see the
White Paper on Establishing End-to-End Trust, www.microsoft.com/
endtoendtrust (pp. 6-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Role of Regulation
Opinions vary widely on how industry and Government can best work
together to more effectively increase cybersecurity across critical
infrastructures and Government. But even if public and private
cooperation is optimized and operationalized, that will not provide the
level of security necessary to meet national security demands. This is
true because markets respond to customer demand and most customers,
even though more aware of security issues today than in the past, will
not pay for the level of security likely necessary to protect national
security.
This recognition, however, does not mean the first step to address
the gaps between the current and desired states of security should be
broad-based regulation. Rather, the Government should encourage a
balanced approach, one that combines industry self-regulation with
Government influence (through, for example, procurement regulations)
and then includes carefully tailored regulation when necessary. I
believe such a combined approach can be highly effective without unduly
raising the costs for users and stifling the very innovation that is
needed to make infrastructures more secure.
When security gaps are identified--and neither market forces nor
non-regulatory Government intervention suffices to address that gap--
Government should focus on adopting the regulatory model suggested by
the CSIS Commission. In this model, industry identifies the best
practices, and the Government ensures their adoption and works to
harmonize requirements across sectors. I would also add that any
Government regulation should follow certain key principles: It should
solve a clearly identified problem; it should neither be under-
inclusive (fail to solve the problem fully) nor over-inclusive (address
more than the problem); it should not be crafted in a way that creates
unintended consequences; and it should be technology-neutral and not
create hard-to-modify statutorily imposed technology requirements that
stifle innovation and prevent further enhancements in security.
Progress in cyberspace security is not without cost. Voluntary
efforts have closed many security gaps but have not done enough.
Establishing a cohesive national strategy with a robust public-private
partnership will create a framework for tailored regulations that can
advance identity and trust in a manner that markets alone cannot.
moving forward
The first major Presidential document on emerging threats in
cyberspace was published more than a decade ago when the President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection released its seminal
report.\5\ At that time, only 1.7% of the world's population (70
million people) had internet access. In the years that have followed,
the world has changed dramatically. Attacks have evolved from exploits
designed to garner attention to targeted stealth attacks that are
designed for more nefarious purposes, such as conducting identity
theft, economic espionage, and military espionage. In 2008, almost a
quarter of the world's population (more than 1.5 billion people) had
internet access, and it continues to grow.\6\ The rise of the internet
has permitted new forms of social connection, and created new
educational and economic opportunities. But the richness of cyberspace
also permits criminals, foreign intelligence organizations, and nation-
states to exploit cyberspace for profit, espionage, or conflict.
Securing America's future in the information age depends upon creating
a comprehensive national strategy for cyberspace security, one that
simplifies, organizes and enables operational partnerships between and
among Government and private-sector stakeholders, including internet
citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/
5_PCCIPCriticalFoundations_1097_full_report.pdf.
\6\ http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Yoran to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMIT YORAN, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NET WITNESS CORPORATION
Mr. Yoran. Ms. Chairwoman and Members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on Reviewing the
Federal Cybersecurity Mission and for your attention to this
important topic. My name is Amit Yoran and I have a lot to say,
so I will skip reading my bio and jump right into it.
An effective national cyber effort must leverage the
intelligence community's superior technical acumen and
scalability. However, it is in grave peril if this effort is
dominated by the intelligence community. Simply put, the
intelligence community has always and will always prioritize
its own collection efforts over the defensive and protection
mission of our Government's and Nation's digital systems. When
intelligence operations discover a compromise, the decision to
inform system defenders or not lacks transparency. Mission
conflict exists between those defending systems and those
attempting to collect intelligence or counter-intelligence
insights.
The current series of cyber programs called for billions of
dollars in funding for intelligence and centralized security
efforts, but are designed with very little emphasis on helping
defenders better protect the systems housing our valuable data
and business processes.
For instance, the Center for Disease Control, which houses
sensitive research and information about biological threats
such as anthrax, has ongoing cyber incidents which it lacks the
personnel and technologies to adequately investigate. In the
face of spending billions more on centralized cyber
intelligence activities, the CDC's cyber budget is being cut by
37 percent. Intelligence focused on national efforts are
overclassified, to the point where catastrophic consequences
are highly probable. High levels of classification prevent the
sharing of information necessary to adequately defend our
systems.
For instance, IP addresses, when classified, cannot be
loaded into defensive monitor systems. It also creates
insurmountable hurdles when working with a broad range of
Government IT staffs that do not have appropriate clearances,
let alone when trying to work with, communicate, and partner
with the private sector. Classification cannot be used
effectively as a cyber defensive technique, only one for
avoiding responsibility and accountability. Overclassification
leads to a narrowly limited review of any program.
One of the hard lessons learned from the terrorist
surveillance program is that such a limited review can lead to
ineffective legal vetting of a program. The cyber mission
cannot be plagued by the same flaws as the TSP.
An immediate, thorough, and transparent legal analysis of
the governance authority's privacy requirements should be
performed on the efforts used to both protect our CT systems as
well as all cyber collection activities. Given the broad
concerns of overclassification and its cascading consequences,
conducting these reviews must be a high-priority task.
Cyber research investments are practically nonexistent at a
time when bold new visions need to be explored. The Department
of Homeland Security has demonstrated inefficiency and
leadership failure in its cyber efforts. While pockets of
progress have been made, administrative incompetence and
political infighting have squandered meaningful advancement for
years now, while our adversaries continue to aggressively press
their advantage.
DHS has repeatedly failed to attract or retain the
leadership and technical acumen required to successfully lead
in the cyber mission. While the tendency would be to move the
cyber mission to the NSA, it would be ill-advised for all the
reasons I provide in my much longer written testimony.
We must enable civil government to succeed in its mission
of defense or also concede that the private sector, too, cannot
succeed in its defensive mission and subjugate them to
intelligence support. DHS is the natural and appropriate place
for public/private partnership and cooperative activities,
including those in cyber.
The current set of public/private partnerships is at best
ill-defined. They categorically suffer from meaningful value
creation or private sector incentives for participation. Such
incentives might include tax credits, fines, liability levers,
public recognition, or even occur at an operational level
through mechanisms such as the sharing of threat intelligence,
technical knowledge, incident response report, to name just a
few.
Trust relationships when dealing in cybersecurity matters
are absolutely critical. In discussions among privacy and civil
liberties group, the role of the NSA in monitoring or defending
U.S. networks is debated. Should such intelligence programs
exist, DHS should be very cautious before participating in,
supporting or engagement in these activities.
The Department's ability to fulfill its primary mission and
responsibilities may be permanently damaged by a loss of public
confidence and trust. At a bare minimum, in order to preserve
this trust, any interacting with domestic intelligence efforts
should be explicitly and clearly articulated.
Sufficient transparency may serve to increase public trust
and confidence and offset concerns raised by uncertainty and
the uninformed. DHS must be formally charged with and enabled
to build an effective cyber capability in support of securing
our Federal civilian systems. Special provisions should be made
in the hiring, contracting, human resources, and political
issues within the cyber mission of DHS to prevent it from
remaining a victim of the Department's broader administrative
failures.
DHS should be given specific emergency authorities to
address security concerns in civil systems, to include the
ability to measure compliance with security standards,
protocols, and practices, and take decisive action where
organizations are not applying reasonable standards of care. At
present, the operation's cybersecurity arm of DHS, US-CERT,
remains politically torn apart into three components,
completely subjugated to a cadre of detailees from the
intelligence community.
In order to regain efficiency, the Department's operational
security activities must be reconsolidated in the US-CERT. This
operational mission is not resourced to succeed with less than
20 Government FTEs and a budget of only $67 million.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Yoran, I am just going to ask if you can
summarize and we will probably pick up on more of your
testimony through questions. Of course, we have your full
testimony in the record.
Mr. Yoran. Yes, Madam Chairwoman.
The newly focused DHS US-CERT should report directly to the
Secretary of DHS, just as NTOC reports to the Director of NSA.
The cyber responsibilities of the Department must not remain
buried in the Department or, alternatively, they must be
removed and placed in an independent agency where they can
succeed. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Yoran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amit Yoran
March 10, 2009
Ms. Chairwoman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Homeland Security Committee on Reviewing the Federal
Cybersecurity Mission.
My name is Amit Yoran and I am the CEO of the NetWitness
Corporation, a company providing next generation cybersecurity
monitoring technologies to the U.S. Government and private sector,
including Fortune 500 companies delivering critical infrastructure
cyber protection to the Nation. I serve as a member of the CSIS Cyber
Commission advising the 44th Presidency and on numerous security
industry advisory bodies.
Previously I have served as the first Director of the National
Cyber Security Division (NCSD) in standing up the United States
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) and Einstein program at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as founder and CEO of Riptech, a
leading managed security services provider, and as manager of the
Vulnerability Analysis Program (VAP) of the U.S. Department of
Defense's Computer Emergency Response Team (DoD CERT). I received
Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the United States
Military Academy at West Point and Master of Science in Computer
Science from The George Washington University.
Over the past 15 years, automation and use of computer systems has
permeated every aspect of modern life. Our Nation is entirely reliant
upon computer systems and networked technologies in everything from
national security and intelligence activities to commerce and business
operations to power production and transmission to personal
communications and correspondences.
Today's internet has become one of the unifying fabrics driving
globalization at an increasingly accelerated pace. It represents the
core means by which personal and organizational interactions occur
whether those communications take the form of internet email or simply
phone calls, which invariably traverse the cyber realm. Beyond its role
as a communications medium, computer-based automation and technology
are the driving forces behind every major industrial and economic base
in the world. Simply put, computer technologies and communications
represent the greatest threat to and opportunity for expansion of the
U.S. values system.
evolving into a national cyber strategy
The past 2 years have brought about an unprecedented level of
Federal focus and attention on cyber security matters culminating in a
portfolio of activities commonly referred to as the Comprehensive
National Cyber Initiative (CNCI). Advocacy for CNCI under the Bush
administration resided in the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI), under whose charge the billions of dollars in
programs were conceived and orchestrated. While many of the CNCI
programs are well intended and designed, there are several significant
flaws in adopting the Bush administration's CNCI as an on-going
national cyber strategy.
White House leadership. The Obama White House is currently
conducting a comprehensive 60-day review of cyber. The purpose
of the review is to develop a strategic framework to ensure
that ``initiatives in this area are appropriately integrated,
resourced and coordinated both within the Executive Branch and
with Congress and the private sector.'' This review effort will
culminate in recommending an optimal White House organizational
structure for dealing with the cyber challenges facing our
national and economic security as well as ``an action plan on
identifying and prioritizing further work in this area.'' For
the reasons outlined below, an effective national effort to
address cybersecurity can only succeed through continuous,
active, and decisive White House leadership.
Intelligence.
An effective national cyber strategy must leverage the
strength of the intelligence community. As information and
computer-based technologies increasingly permeate how the
world works, opportunities abound to improve the types,
quantity, and quality of intelligence the community can
provide at various levels of classification to its
consumers. In the primary intelligence functions of
collection, analysis, and dissemination, cyberspace can
provide an effective aspect to operations. The volumes of
information and the diversity of sources can quickly become
overwhelming. The intelligence community must continue to
refine its ability to evaluate the quality and value of
such information and accurately assess it in order to
assure its appropriate dissemination to decisionmakers.
This should include improved functionality around
attribution in cyberspace.
There is a clear and distinct conflict of interest between
intelligence objectives and those of system operators.
Simply put, intelligence organizations prioritize the
intelligence and counter-intelligence missions; which in
cyber focuses on monitoring adversaries, determining their
methods and techniques, tracking their activities to a
point of origin, and determination of compromise scope, and
attack intent and adversary's objectives. While these are
very important, they frequently conflict directly with the
information assurance objectives of system owners and
operators, who are primarily concerned with system defense
and protection, and in the event of compromise, a speedy
restoration to a functional and assured state. This
distinction in core objectives is critical because it
represents the difference between programmatic emphasis on
information gathering, or system resilience and
availability. For instance, intelligence and law
enforcement entities often prioritize attack attribution,
while almost no emphasis is placed on attribution by those
defending systems. Rather than sharing information with
operators and better informing them as to how they can
defend and monitor themselves, an intelligence community-
centric mindset around cyber would limit information
exchange and instead focus on enabling the intelligence
community to perform an expanded and aggregated monitoring
program. Such a monitoring program would face significant
cost and scalability impediments. We must remember the
purpose for a monitoring program. Are we in fact monitoring
to enable better defenses? Who makes the decisions to
inform the defense? It is a clear conflict of interest for
those who collect to make this decision. The decision
should be a balanced one. Prioritizing the intelligence
mission also has significant resource allocation
implications. Amid news stories of billions of dollars in
cyber spending under CNCI a majority of resources are going
to intelligence and centralized monitoring activities. For
instance, the Center for Disease Control, where sensitive
information resides about biological threats, such as
anthrax, has on-going incidents which they do not have the
manpower or technology to adequately investigate. In the
face of these challenges, this year the CDC's cybersecurity
budget will be reduced by 37%.
For ill-defined reasons, the CNCI led by ODNI has been
shrouded by a high degree of secrecy and lack of
transparency. The plan itself is so classified that even
Members of Congress have not been provided copies and
industry has had no access to the document. While the need
for high levels of classification may exist in certain
components of a national cyber effort, such as offensive
capabilities or for the protection of sources and methods,
such a broad over-classification is counterproductive to
supporting an effective cyber defense. Such information is
prevented from being shared with operators, most of which
do not hold adequate clearances and creates significant
hurdles when trying to defend unclassified systems. In
recent examples adversary internet addresses used in
attacks and their various attack methods have been
classified to the point they were not broadly available for
defensive purposes or provided through channels. In
numerous cases this roadblock prevented information from
being used effectively in cyber defense and provided
further advantage to our adversaries. If you cannot or will
not share useful information with cyber defenders, their
job is made far more difficult. As the private sector is
increasingly the target of foreign intelligence efforts, a
national cyber effort will need to further evolve its
abilities in working with the private sector. Most
importantly, over-classifying a national cyber strategy
prevents adequate public review and debate to assure that
the programs are designed optimally, contain the highest
level of innovation, and are well-aligned with and informed
by the total body of knowledge of the cyber security
profession. Often classification is used to hide weaknesses
found. Classification cannot be used effectively as a cyber
defensive technique, only one for avoiding responsibility
and accountability. Over-classification leads to a narrowly
limited review of any program. One of the hard-learned
lessons from the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) is
that such limited review can lead to ineffective legal
vetting of a program. The cyber mission cannot be plagued
by the same flaws as the TSP has been.
Intel loss/gain analysis has historically been performed
by the intelligence community's judgment without
substantive subject matter input from those whose systems
are being damaged. If the intelligence community takes on a
leadership role for the cyber mission it is likely that
additional monitoring programs will be put in place to find
the adversary. While the technical acumen within NSA is
strong, better controls over operations would be needed to
reduce the natural emphasis on collection and instead
prioritize the protection and availability of Government
and industry systems. The cyber mission suffers in favor of
the intelligence mission all too often. While protecting
sources and methods, the intelligence community needs to
better inform public and private sectors on the threat
environment and how they can better defend themselves.
Moreover, some organizations may be less likely to act
responsibly and invest properly in monitoring and defending
their own systems if they feel as though they can rely on
some federated intelligence monitoring operation.
Research and Development. The current paradigm in cyber
security is not likely to change significantly through improved
security products, monitoring, and incident response
capabilities. While the private sector makes significant
investment in incremental product, application, and protocol
improvements; fundamental research is required to meaningfully
improve the security of the cyber and critical infrastructures.
According to the CSIS Commission work, ``The federal
government plans to spend about $143 billion in 2009 on
R&D. We estimate that two-tenths of 1 percent of that will
go to cybersecurity.'' An inherently Government investment
must drive long-term research agendas in cybersecurity,
where private sector focus on shorter-term
commercialization limits results to more tactical or
incremental advancements. The Department of Homeland
Security's Science and Technology Directorate invests less
than $20 million per year on cybersecurity research
efforts, a far cry from any responsible level of resource
allocation.
The Government should not use this money to be in the
security product development business, especially via
classified venues. In an overwhelming majority of
instances, Government cyber requirements are substantially
similar to if not exactly the same as the private sector
and only in the rare cases where they are not or in
classified instances, do specific tactical Government
development efforts make sense to consider. In addition, it
is a fact that there is a severe lack of qualified
engineers needed to develop these systems. Today, the
majority of these engineers are employed by the security
industry. The Government and intelligence community should
guide and assist in functional requirements for the
development of technologies which can help us best address
the sophisticated cyber threat environment, not enter the
product development business. The resulting improvement in
security technologies will not only benefit the Government
in protecting its systems, but will also benefit the
Nation's critical infrastructure operators and rest of the
shared internet fabric that joins our digital world.
Additionally, Government development efforts have stranded
enterprise cyber defenders without the benefits of product
management, maintenance, and professional support.
Standards and Acquisition reform. The CSIS Commission report
provides a lot of insight into how the Government can
positively improve its situation as well as security of private
networks by leveraging its expertise in standards, setting and
using its procurement size to effect product vendor behaviors.
We also need to consider more dynamic methods for systems
procurement and lifecycle management as the current processes
seem marginally nimble enough to enable the purchase of a
battle tank or fighter jet. Antiquated and poorly maintained
systems compound our challenges. The systems on Federal
networks average 5 years old. Unlike responsible parties in the
private sector, Federal networks frequently do not have
centralized patching, vulnerability understanding, or adequate
monitoring technologies and processes. Simply put, they are not
achieving or maintaining an appropriate standard of care by any
responsible measure. It should be understood the reasons for
this are a lack of IT and IT security governance. The
technology here is not overly complex; the real challenge is
the people and the process. The average Government executive,
whether DoD or civil, stays in his/her position for an average
of 18 months. There is little or no reason to look ahead at the
next executive's tenure and budget or plan for the life cycle
management or security of a system 18 months later. In
addition, because planning was not done in the previous
executive's tenure, the system the executive has to care for is
more likely than not to be in an unkempt, dated, and insecure
state. There is no governance mechanism or motivation for
Government systems to plan, budget, or perform best practice
life-cycle management which can significantly reduce risk of
loss. Please see the recently published Consensus Audit
Guidelines for a reasonable approach to minimal security
practices.
Legal Review and Privacy Oversight.
Congress and the Obama Administration must work together
to modernize authorities. FISMA and Clinger-Cohen are dated
and fraught with politics and games. Without hard-hitting,
detailed legislation that structures governance and
authorities no program will succeed. Today the CNCI is not
codified. HSPDs 54 and 23 are not supported by legislation,
therefore are not mandated. An immediate, thorough, and
transparent legal analysis of the governance, authorities,
and privacy requirements should be performed on both the
efforts used to protect IT systems as well as an analysis
with the requisite understanding of intelligence and
national security law for all cyber collection activities.
Given the broad concerns of over-classification, conducting
these reviews must be a high priority task.
An effective national cyber function requires an informed
privacy function. Privacy issues need proper review and
advocacy when designing various Government cyber security
programs, especially those of the intelligence and law
enforcement communities. An effective program should be
implemented in a non-partisan fashion by qualified privacy
professionals who are not members of the executive or
legislative branches and have fixed terms of service
without eligibility for reappointment or extension terms.
Security can be implemented with and even contribute to
enhanced privacy, but it is not easy and often not without
strong and deliberate privacy advocacy and oversight.
Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has demonstrated
inefficiency and leadership failure in its cyber efforts.
While pockets of progress have been made, administrative
incompetence and political infighting have squandered
meaningful progress and for years now our adversaries
continue to aggressively press their advantage. Recently,
the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis
Blair, told the House intelligence committee that, ``the
NSA, rather than the Department of Homeland Security which
currently oversees cybersecurity, has the smarts and the
skills to secure cyberspace.'' In his assessment of both
organizations he is absolutely correct. DHS has repeated
failed to either attract or retain the leadership and
technical acumen required to successfully lead in the cyber
mission space. On a number of occasions proven, talented,
and knowledgeable leaders from within the Government or
successful experts from private sector have joined the
Department in hopes of meaningful contribution. In its
cyber responsibilities DHS has a consistent track record
for tolerating political infighting, individual egos, and
shenanigans over prioritizing and executing its cyber
responsibilities in a mature fashion. While the tendency
would be to migrate the cyber mission to the NSA, that
would be ill-advised for all of the reasons provided
earlier. In Rod Beckstrom's resignation letter last week,
he states, ``NSA effectively controls DHS cyber efforts
thru detailees, technology insertion and the proposed move
of NPPD and the NCSC to a Ft. Meade NSA facility. NSA
currently dominates most national cyber efforts . . . The
intelligence culture is very different than a network
operations or security culture. In addition, the threats to
our democratic processes are significant if all top level
government network security and monitoring are handled by
any one organization.'' This could not have been more
accurately stated. We must enable civil government to
succeed at this mission. This being said, it is far past
time we fix the DHS problems and move forward.
Public-Private Partnership. In addition to defining
increased security functionality and assurances for
Commercial Off the Shelf Software (COTS), the Government
must work more closely with the private sector and
understand their businesses if it is to be effective in
constructing useful partnership programs. Programs managed
in a vacuum by the intelligence community at a highly
classified level are unlikely to work well and in concert
with system operators within the Federal Government, let
alone in the private sector, where not only are mission
objectives completely foreign, but where there are very few
people with Government clearances. Government programs need
to focus on open dialog and information exchange, and
enabling the private sector to better understand the
security challenges they face and how they might be
overcome with the help of the Government. DHS is the
natural and appropriate placement for public-private
partnership and cooperative activities, including those in
cyber security. The current set of public-private
partnerships are at best ill-defined. While well-
intentioned and occasionally valuable information is
brought to the Department, they categorically suffer from
meaningful value creation to the private sector. A deeper
understanding of how cyber defense and security operations
are implemented in the private sector is required by those
crafting the evolution of these programs so that adequate
incentives can be appropriately incorporated going forward.
Such incentives might include tax consequences, fines,
liability levers, public recognition, or even occur at an
operational level, such as the sharing of threat
intelligence, technical knowledge or incident response
support to name just a few. Due to its fluid nature, trust
relationships when dealing in cyber security matters are at
least as strongly emphasized as in physical security. In
news reports and discussions among privacy and civil
liberties groups the role of the NSA in monitoring or
defending domestic private networks is debated. Should such
intelligence programs exist, DHS should be very careful to
distance itself from participation, support, or engagement
in these activities. The Department's ability to fulfill
its primary mission and responsibilities may be permanently
damaged by a loss of public confidence and trust. At a bare
minimum, in order to preserve public trust, its interaction
with domestic intelligence collection efforts should be
explicitly and clearly articulated.
NCSC and US-CERT. Congress and the administration should
focus DHS where it can have the greatest positive impact.
The Department's culture migrates toward increasing its own
mission scope and infrequently emphasizes a crawl, walk,
run mentality. Sometimes, it's just time to close
PowerPoint and Word, stop the rhetoric and simply roll the
sleeves up and begin the actual work at hand. For instance,
spending the Department's limited resources on advocacy
programs for better software development, where the
Department has very limited experience, expertise, and
credibility is of exceptionally limited value.
The US-CERT works to support the security of Government
networks through design, deployment and monitoring the
Einstein series of programs to enhance situational
awareness, be the centralized incident reporting authority
for the Federal civilian networks, facilitate efficient
incident response and cleanup efforts, support the private
sector through information exchange with critical
infrastructure operators, and working with IT and IT
security product vendors to assure that they can address
the needs of the broader Federal Government and critical
infrastructures.
At present the US-CERT remains torn apart into three arms; a
technology deployment arm (lead by an intelligence
community detailee), a security arm (managing the Trusted
Internet Connection program), and the operations arm
(performing the core US-CERT mission). This stove-piping
has added political strife, inability to spend 2009 money
this year, and defocusing all from accomplishing the single
US-CERT mission. In order to regain any efficiency, the
Department's operational security role, which has been
ripped apart by years of political infighting, must be
reconsolidated in the US-CERT. The critical work of the US-
CERT with its operational mission is not resourced to
succeed (fewer than 20 Government FTEs, a budget of only
$67 million out of the Department's $355 million spend on
cybersecurity). Additionally, the US-CERT must be lead by a
single Federal civil executive.
The coordination function of the National Cyber Security Center
is underutilized. Rod Beckstrom's recent resignation claims
that only 8 weeks of the annual funding have been provided
to it. His concerns for NSA management control of DHS'
cyber efforts apply to the US-CERT as well, which reports
to detailee from the USSS, who reports to detailee from
NSA/Navy. All special assistants around the Acting
Assistant Secretary are also NSA detailees. The US-CERT
must be provided appropriate staffing levels to move
forward and given adequate funding. Not doing so cannot
help but send the strongest message to the cyber community,
the rest of Government, the intelligence community, and the
private sector that cybersecurity does not matter to DHS
leadership and the Department's role is unnecessary. A
newly focused cyber mission must report directly to the
Secretary of DHS. This critical mission has been sought
aggressively by so many parties, but resisted so strongly
by the Department responsible for its successful execution.
Cyber must not remain buried in the bureaucracy of DHS or,
alternatively, it must be removed and placed where it can
succeed.
The House Homeland Security Committee and Congress should work with
the Executive branch to assure these fundamental changes are made:
1. DHS must be charged with and enabled to build an effective cyber
capability in support of securing Federal civilian systems.
a. Make special provisions in the hiring, contracting, human
resources, political issues within the cyber mission of DHS
to prevent it from remaining a victim of the Department's
broader administrative failures.
b. Enable the US-CERT to stand up the capabilities necessary to
assist in the defense of Federal civil government as a
component of the Federal civil agency charged with
defending the homeland.
c. DHS should also be given specific emergency authorities to
specifically address security concerns in civil systems, to
include the ability to measure compliance with security
standard, protocols, and practices and take decisive action
where organizations are not applying reasonable standards
of care.
2. Flesh out, define roles, responsibilities and authorities of
DHS, DoJ, DoD, NSA, and other Federal departments and agencies
engaged in securing digital infrastructure. Such a framework
should be publicly stated so that trust and confidence in cyber
programs can be restored. It will also be a critical step in
guiding more informed and consistent interactions with the
private sector. Steps must also be put in place to allow the
White House, Congress, departments and agencies to have
visibility, input, and clear oversight into the process and
solutions.
3. Adequately resourcing for success.
a. A large-scale reallocation of the DHS cyber monies toward the
programs which are operational and provide meaningful value
add to its responsibilities to the Federal civil networks
is needed.
b. There exists stronger network controls and millions of dollars
spent by DoD and NSA to protect the DoD networks, and that
they still are under-resourced to adequately defend
themselves. Only a fraction of that is being spent to
defend Federal civilian systems and in reality those
networks are by comparison 10 times larger than the Defense
Department's.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you as well for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Davidson to summarize her statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DAVIDSON, CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, ORACLE
CORPORATION
Ms. Davidson. Chairwoman Clarke, Members of the
subcommittee, my name is Mary Ann Davidson. I am Chief Security
Officer for Oracle. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding the important issue of cybersecurity.
The Declaration of Independence states all men are created
equal. All information systems, however, are not. The truth of
the statement should be self-evident but it isn't, and therein
lies a risk to our freedoms. The ubiquity, flexibility, and
configurability of information systems has led to circumstances
in which software designed for a particular purpose and
environment is too often deployed in an environment it was
never designed for, without any thought or explicit acceptance
of the risks in so doing. There is no substitute for knowing up
front what you need software for, how it is going to be
deployed, and what risks you can accept and what risks you
won't. The time to make these determinations is during
procurement, not afterwards.
The Navy does not purchase container ships and try to
deploy them as aircraft carriers, nor does the Air Force
purchase Gulfstream V's and try to configure them as F-22
Raptors. While there is nothing wrong with container ships or
Gulfstream V's, they were not designed for the operational
needs or the threat environment that aircraft carriers and F-
22s were designed for.
Why then is information technology somehow different? It
isn't. Good security, like good hardware, starts in
procurement: Knowing what you need, how it will be used, and
explicitly describing the threat environment for deployment.
Use procurement wisely and aggressively.
This brings me to my second point. Information technology
is mission-critical not merely mission-enabling. Our entire
economy rests on an IT backbone; in particular, our homeland
security and our military's ability to prosecute war rests on
an IT backbone. DOD continues to invest in network-centric
operations, which is all about getting the right information to
the right warrior at the right time and the right battlespace.
This makes the network itself the battlefield and therefore,
DOD needs to enhance the treatment of information systems as a
core mission specialty as well as using information systems
offensively. Absent this capability, the DOD will not be able
to use IT as the force multiplier it is.
Just as General Patton knew his tanks and their technical
capabilities very well, not just merely how to deploy them, our
military and homeland security leaders need to know and how to
deploy and embrace the full capability of IT. Putting it
differently, do we envision having a contractor at the helm of
an aircraft carrier? If not, then why would our cyber offense
be any different? General Patton also knew that the 3rd Army
would stop without supplies of gas. Netcentric armies stop
without supplies of information. Only by holding capability for
both function and esteem can offense inform defense.
This brings me to my third point. We are in a conflict.
Some would say a war. Let's call it what it is. Given the
diversity of potentially hostile entities building cadres of
cyber warriors probing our systems, including our defense
systems for weaknesses, infiltrating U.S. Government networks
and making similar attempts against American businesses and
critical industries, is there any other conclusion to be
reached?
There are three obvious outgrowths from the above
statement. One is that you can't win a war if you don't admit
you are in one. The second is that nobody wins on defense. The
third is that we need a doctrine for how we intercede in
cyberspace that covers both offense and defense and maps to
existing legal and societal principles in the off-line world.
In short, Congress should consider developing a 21st
century application of the Monroe Doctrine. The need for a
framework to guide the Government's role in response to foreign
aggression is a point that Melissa Hathaway has specifically
noted during her review and an area where this subcommittee can
work with the National Security Council.
You may recall that the Monroe Doctrine, introduced in
1823, said that further efforts by European governments to
interfere with the States in the Americas, the Western
Hemisphere, would be viewed by the United States as acts of
aggression, and the United States would intervene. The Monroe
Doctrine is one of our longest-standing foreign policy tenets,
invoked on multiple occasions by multiple Presidents. We have,
as the expression goes, sent in the Marines and the rest of our
Armed Forces to uphold it.
Some may argue that cyberspace is virtual and unsuited to
declared spheres of influence. But even internet protocol
addresses mapped to physical devices in physical locations we
care about: Critical infrastructures such as a server for a
utility company in New York or a bank in California. Note that
the Monroe Doctrine did not detail the same intervention or
even specific intervention for each perceived act of
aggression. Merely laid out ``Here is our turf, stay out or
face the consequences,'' language that allowed great
flexibility in terms of potential responses.
We need not militarize all elements of U.S. cyberspace any
more than invoking the Monroe Doctrine meant creating permanent
military encampments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The
advantages of invoking a Monroe Doctrine in cyberspace would be
to put the world on notice that the United States has cyber
turf, and the second is that we will defend our turf. We need
to do both now.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Davidson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Ann Davidson
Chairwoman Clark, Members of the subcommittee, my name is Mary Ann
Davidson, and I am Chief Security Officer for Oracle. For more than 30
years, information security has been a central part of Oracle's
software DNA, and is a big reason why the Federal Government is
Oracle's largest customer. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding the important issue of cybersecurity.
1. The Declaration of Independence states ``All men are created
equal.'' All information systems, however, are not.
This truth of this statement should be self-evident but it isn't,
and therein lies a risk to our freedoms. The ubiquity, flexibility, and
configurability of information systems has led to circumstances in
which software designed for a particular purpose and environment is too
often deployed in an environment it was never designed for, without any
thought or explicit acceptance of the risks in so doing. Without
properly scoping our requirements we are faced with an all-or-nothing
approach to cyberspace, simultaneously putting at risk our civil
liberties, our homeland security and the women and men of our armed
forces.
Let me give you a present-day example: I had a most frightening
conversation with a highly placed official in the Defense Department
who said that DoD wanted to use popular social networking software and
that (direct quote) ``you in industry need to secure it.'' My response
to that statement: ``What is DoD going to use the software FOR? `Hi,
I'm an al Qaeda operative. I like long walks on the beach and IEDs.
Will you friend me?' '' Without an appropriate context, I noted to the
gentleman, there is no magic security dust we in industry can sprinkle
on technology that is already ``out there and being used,'' especially
if we do not know what it is being used for. Certainly there are
legitimate scenarios where we may want to permit our troops to use
social networking software as a morale booster, including contact with
their family and friends, but the technical and policy-based security
requirements around that use case are different from a use case where
the DoD might use similar technology for operational purposes.
There is no substitute for knowing upfront what you need software
for, how it is going to be deployed, and what risks you can accept and
what risks you won't. The time to make those determinations is during
procurement, not after. The Navy does not purchase container ships and
try to deploy them as aircrafts carriers. Nor does the Air Force
purchase Gulfstream Vs and try to configure them as F-22 Raptors. There
is nothing wrong with container ships or Gulfstream Vs, by the way, but
they were not designed for the operational needs or--and I emphasize
this last point--threat environment that aircraft carriers and F-22s
were designed for. Why, then, is information technology somehow
``different?'' It isn't. Private industry and Government agencies have
varying use cases and threat environments in cyberspace, just as they
share different requirements in the real world. And where privately run
information systems can benefit from defensive technologies informed by
our offensive capabilities--to use a metaphor--this rising tide will
lift all ships in cyberspace.
Unfortunately, many think software is so flexible and configurable,
that one size fits all applications. It doesn't. The military already
knows this, but sometimes they need an occasional reminder. When I was
a naval officer, I had many different uniforms: dress blues, dress
whites, tropical whites, khakis, and utility greens. Each had its
purpose. Should one be foolish enough to wear dress blues to a
firefight, it isn't merely that you will be breaking uniform
regulations; you aren't going to be adequately protected, either. You
wear body armor to a firefight. While cost is one consideration in
deployment, it need not be the only one, unless we plan on digging up
old Lee-Enfield rifles and giving them to the Marine Corps instead of
the M-16s they now use. ``You get what you pay for'' is as true in
software as in anything else.
Good security, like good hardware starts in procurement: Knowing
what you need, how it will be used, and explicitly describing the
threat environment for deployment. Use procurement wisely and
aggressively.
This brings me to my second point.
2. Information technology is mission critical, not merely mission
enabling.
Our entire economy rests on an IT backbone: The acronym ``IT''
therefore represents ``infrastructure technology'' as much as
``information technology.'' In particular, our homeland security and
our military's ability to prosecute war rests on an IT backbone. DoD
continues to invest in network-centric operations, which is all about
getting the right information to the right warrior at the right time in
the right battlespace. Therefore, the network itself is the battlefield
because the network is what our enemies will attack if they want to
deny us the ability to use our own technology (or in an attempt to use
our technology against us).
Given that DoD has bet the farm on information systems, they need
to enhance its treatment of information systems as a core mission
specialty in supporting roles as well as using information systems
offensively as a warfare specialty. Absent this capability, the DoD
will not able to fully use IT as the force multiplier it can be. Just
as Patton knew his tanks and their technical capabilities very well,
not just merely how to deploy them, our military and homeland security
leaders need to know and embrace the full capability of IT. Putting it
differently, do we envision having a contractor at the helm of an in-
theatre aircraft carrier? If not, then why would our cyber offense be
any different? Note that the ability to deploy and support systems
itself is also a critical mission specialty, just as, say, supply/
logistics is a staff function in the military but a critical one.
Patton knew very well that armies stop without supplies of gas; net-
centric armies stop without supporting information systems.
Furthermore, only by holding capability for both functions in esteem
can ``offense inform defense'' and vice versa.
We must also remember the strength of the American economy rests on
the flexibility afforded the private sector to innovate and market
those innovations globally. In the same way our Nation's electrical
grid, pipelines, roads, and railways support our military but are not
run by our military, our critical cyber infrastructures and the
companies who create them cannot simply fall under military control. Of
course our Government should defend our cyber interests, but in the
same way we would abhor a military presence at every intersection, we
must also ensure civilian control over the normal operation of our
digital highways.
This brings me to my third point.
3. We are in a conflict--some would say a war. Let's call it what it
is.
Given the diversity of potentially hostile entities building cadres
of cyberwarriors, probing our systems--including our defense systems--
for weaknesses, infiltrating U.S. Government networks and making
similar attempts against American businesses and critical industries,
is there any other conclusion to be reached? Whatever term we use,
there are three obvious outgrowths from the above statement. One is
that you can't win a ``conflict''--or war--if you don't admit you are
in one. The second is that nobody wins on defense. The third is that we
need a doctrine for how we intercede in cyberspace that covers both
offense and defense and maps to existing legal and societal principles
in the off-line world. In short, Congress should consider developing a
21st century application of a Monroe-like Doctrine. The need for a
framework to guide the Government's role in response to foreign
aggression is a point that Melissa Hathaway has already noted during
her 60-day interagency review of the Federal cybersecurity mission, and
an area where this subcommittee can productively collaborate with the
National Security Council.
For those a tad rusty on their U.S. history, the Monroe Doctrine
(introduced December 2, 1823) said that further efforts by European
governments to interfere with states in the Americas--the Western
hemisphere--would be viewed by the United States as acts of aggression
and the United States would intervene. The Monroe Doctrine is one of
our longest-standing foreign policy tenets: Invoked on multiple
occasions by multiple presidents, including Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin
Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and John Kennedy. We have, as the expression
goes, sent in the Marines--and the rest of our armed forces--to support
the Monroe Doctrine.
Note that the Monroe Doctrine did not detail the same intervention
or even specific intervention for each perceived act of aggression,
merely laid out ``here is our turf; stay out or face the consequences''
language that allowed great flexibility in terms of potential
responses. Some may argue that cyberspace is ``virtual'' and unsuited
to declared spheres of influence. But even internet protocol (IP)
addresses map to physical devices in physical locations we care about--
critical infrastructures such as a server for a utility company in New
York, for example, or a bank in California.
The advantages of invoking a Monroe-like Doctrine in cyberspace
would be to put the world on notice that the United States has cyber
``turf,'' (properly and narrowly scoped--we should not claim all
cyberspace as our turf). The second is that we will defend our turf. We
need to do both. Now.
As I mentioned earlier, having a military response capability does
not mean militarizing all elements of U.S. cyberspace any more than
invoking the Monroe Doctrine meant necessarily creating permanent
encampments throughout the Western hemisphere. Nor should a cyber-
Monroe Doctrine lead to permanent Government encampments in private
networks, or become a mandate for unilateral intervention in all of
cyberspace. With proper guidance, various Government agencies and the
private sector can find their natural role in guarding our cyber
infrastructures in a framework similar to how we currently protect our
real-world interests.
To summarize:
Technology is only a force multiplier if you pick the right
technology for the intended use and intended threat
environment. The Government must make security an explicit part
of procurement, funding appropriately skilled staff to execute
these procurement requirements while recognizing that some non-
commercial requirements will incur additional costs.
We need a skilled cadre of Government information technology
professionals--both offense (in the military) and defense
(throughout the entire Government).
We need the cyber-equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine for our
21st-century information age that respects the boundaries of
our shared ownership of the Nation's cyber infrastructure.
Ms. Clarke. We thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Lewis to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. LEWIS, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. Lewis. Thank you and thank you to the committee for the
opportunity to testify. The new administration has a real
opportunity to improve our Nation's security in cyberspace, but
there are many difficult issues it has to address, and the work
of this committee will be essential in helping to guide that
effort.
You know, the President has directed the National Security
Council to undertake a 60-day review. This review is an
important step. Cyberspace, as you have heard, has become one
of the central pillars of our economy and our national
security. Securing cyberspace will help enable recovery and
future growth. Officials involved in the review have told me it
is forward-looking, with a broad scope. It will lay out a
strategic framework for the United States.
In my testimony, I would like to discuss how to assess the
review. The Center for Strategic and International Studies
issued a report in December on steps the next President could
take. We made many recommendations and whether you like our
recommendations or not, I believe strongly that we identified
the right issues. Any review that does not address the issues
we identified will be inadequate.
Among our recommendations there are two that I think are
crucial. The first is the need for clear leadership from the
White House, and the second is a comprehensive plan for moving
ahead. We undertook a long discussion of who should lead the
Federal cybersecurity effort. It looked at many agencies:
Defense, FBI, GSA, DHS, the intelligence community. We were
concerned with agency authorities and competencies, but also
with the signal that a lead agency would send to the public and
to the world. The United States should avoid being perceived as
militarizing the internet, and it should avoid solutions that
give rise to concerns over privacy and civil liberties. In the
end, we decided only the White House had the necessary
authority.
Clear White House leadership is essential, but it has to be
accompanied by a truly strategic plan, a truly strategic plan--
a truly comprehensive plan, I am sorry.
What does comprehensive mean? It means going beyond an
effort to secure Government networks. It means integrating
offensive and defensive strategies and looking at how to
improve attribution and identity in cyberspace. It means
engaging with foreign nations, something we have not done
particularly well. It means accepting that the Federal
Government must use its regulatory powers if we are to make any
progress.
I want to emphasize the need to develop regulatory
strategies, because this has been largely overlooked in
previous national efforts. Regulation is necessary when market
forces alone will not provide security. We were careful to note
in our report that a new approach is needed, one that avoids
both prescriptive regulations, but also rules, that are so
diluted as to be meaningless. New regulation must be developed
in partnership with the private sector, but with the Government
setting the goals and ensuring compliance.
My own view is that regulation is essential if we are to
give substance to public/private partnerships. Regulation gives
us an opportunity to improve cybersecurity in critical
infrastructure, something this committee has worked on in the
past and you will be working on, I understand, in the future.
The work of this committee has made a tremendous contribution.
It helped guide us in writing the report. Regulation of
critical infrastructure will become increasingly important. The
stimulus package envisions spending on infrastructure and it
will build security in. This is a good idea, but when we come
to the question of what precisely needs to be done to make new
projects secure, we don't know the answer, and we don't have
the time or the people to develop that answer.
A failure to invest in infrastructure modernization for
almost 2 decades has made it impossible to build both quickly
and securely. Smart Grid projects are an example of this. Smart
Grid uses, for example, advanced meters to measure and manage
the flow of electricity. These new meters are based on network
technologies. Unfortunately, if the new smart meters are not
secure, they can be hacked. Regulation can play a role in
remedying this by giving Government the ability to mandate
actions that mitigate our new vulnerabilities. But if we do not
build the regulatory foundation now, the United States will be
put at risk.
Let me summarize quickly. It is always difficult batting
clean-up because everyone has already said everything. But we
need somebody in charge at the White House who will implement a
comprehensive plan. That plan has to include strategies for
international engagement and for domestic regulation. Then we
need to move out.
Okay. I thank the committee and look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Lewis
March 10, 2009
I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on the Federal
Cybersecurity Mission. I believe that the new administration has a real
opportunity to make a significant difference in improving our Nation's
security in cyberspace, but there are many difficult issues that it
must address. The work of this committee will be essential for helping
to guide that effort.
As you know, the President directed that the National Security
Council undertake a 60-day review of the U.S. approach to
cybersecurity. Federal officials involved in the review have told me
that this is a forward-looking effort with a broad scope. It looks
beyond securing Federal networks, which was the focus of the last
administration's efforts, and will endeavor to lay out a strategic
framework for the United States.
The decision to undertake this broad review is an important step
forward for our Nation. Cyberspace has become one of the central
pillars of our economy and our national security. The adoption of
network technologies since the 1990's by the United States has been a
source of both competitive advantage and the rapid growth. The digital
infrastructure is now essential. More importantly, expanding our
digital advantage offers the possibility for continued increases in
productivity and innovation. Securing cyberspace will help enable
recovery and future growth.
Reaping the full advantage of digital technologies will require
real improvement in cybersecurity. Estimates of the damage to our
economy are imprecise, but millions of dollars are lost each year to
fraud and theft, millions of dollars worth of intellectual property
lost to foreign competitors, with the total easily reaching into the
billion. One of my fears is that as we increase spending on research
and science as part of the stimulus package, we are actually
subsidizing the research of our economic and military competitors since
they can easily access work that cost us millions to develop for only a
few dollars.
There is of course additional risk that insecure digital networks
could allow foreign militaries and intelligence services, criminals, or
other groups, to disrupt the provision of crucial services that are
either provided by or depend upon digital technologies. It is easy to
overstate the consequences of this sort of attack, and much of the
discussion of cybersecurity over the last decade has involved some very
silly and exaggerated scenarios for national disaster, but the risk is
real and growing, and any national security strategy that does not
address it is inadequate.
Where are we today in cyber security? From one perspective, we are
in remarkably bad shape. In the last year, we have seen the networks of
the two Presidential campaigns, secure networks at the U.S. Central
Command and computer networks in Congress and other Federal agencies
penetrated by outsiders. 2007 saw a number of significant penetrations
of major Federal agencies by an unknown foreign power. The Secretary of
Defense's unclassified email was hacked. The Department of Commerce's
Bureau responsible for high tech exports off-line for more than a
month. The networks of the Departments of State and Energy, NASA, and
other Federal agencies were penetrated and according to public reports,
immense quantities of information downloaded. The networks of Federal
contractors, the defense industry and other leading companies were also
penetrated. Again, our statistics on this are imprecise, as companies
prefer to conceal their losses or in many instances may not even be
aware they have been hacked. Poor cybersecurity damages national
security and drains our economy.
In response to this crisis, the Bush administration created its
Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (known as CNCI). This
initiative made real progress in securing Federal networks. CNCI
included Einstein, a technology that monitors Federal networks for
intrusion. It included the Trusted Internet Connection initiative, TIC.
It looked at the question of how to use Federal procurements to improve
cybersecurity in an effort know as the Federal Desktop core
Configuration--FDCC. The CNCI included several other initiatives and
projects, some of which were underway by the time the Bush
administration ended. Overall, it was a major step forward.
However, the CNCI had several major drawbacks. It began in the last
year of the Bush administration. This late start was a serious
impediment and one advantage for the Obama administration is that it
came into office understanding that securing cyberspace is a major
strategic issue. The CNCI was highly and unnecessarily classified. A
few of its elements deserved being labeled top secret, but most did
not, and the difficulties that over-classification created for
coordinating with the private sector and with our allies seriously
impeded the Bush administration effort. Finally, and most importantly,
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, despite its name,
was not comprehensive.
This was its greatest failing. The CNCI focused on the ``dot.gov''
space, on Government networks, and while this is important, it is
inadequate for cybersecurity. The task involves a global network
largely operated by the private sector. The CNCI did not have a serious
international component and it did not adequately address how to secure
critical infrastructure or the ``dot.com'' space where most commercial
activity takes place. These were serious shortcomings, and they point
to crucial areas for work by the new administration.
At the same time that the previous administration began work on the
CNCI, the Center for Strategic and International Studies created a
commission to develop recommendations for the 44th Presidency on how to
improve cybersecurity. CSIS is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center
organization headquartered in Washington, DC with more than 200 staff
and a large network of affiliated experts. Its research focus is on
security in a changing global environment. CSIS has been working on
cybersecurity issues for many years and this work led us, in the face
of the damaging events of 2007, to establish this Commission. When we
began our work and for many months afterwards, we did not know of the
CNCI. Officials involved in the CSNI initially declined our invitations
to participate in order to preserve the initiative's secrecy.
The report produced by this commission--I note that the other
private sector witnesses on this panel were members of the group--laid
out a truly comprehensive approach to securing cyberspace. Thirty-eight
thousand copies have been downloaded from the CSIS Web site. We were
guided by the conclusions that Federal disorganization and an over-
reliance on voluntary efforts had damaged our national security. To
summarize our recommendations:
Create a comprehensive national security strategy for
cyberspace that uses all the tools of U.S. power in a
coordinated fashion--international engagement and diplomacy;
military planning and doctrine; economic policy tools; and the
involvement of the intelligence and law enforcement
communities.
Publish a public doctrine for cyberspace. The President
should state publicly that the cyber infrastructure of the
United States is a vital asset for national security and the
economy and that the United States will protect it, using all
instruments of national power.
Clarify governance and responsibility for cyber security and
establish White House leadership for cybersecurity based on
Presidential Strategy and Directives.
Use regulation to set minimum standards for securing
cyberspace, to ensure that the delivery of critical services
can continue when we are attacked.
Mandate strong authentication for access to critical
infrastructure. Strong authentication can significantly improve
defense, if it is done in a way that protects privacy and civil
liberties.
Use acquisitions policies and rule to drive security, to
encourage the development and use of products and services that
are secure, based on standards and guidelines developed in
partnership with industry.
Build human capital and improved technologies for securing
cyberspace by expanding research, training, and education.
Refocus and strengthen public-private partnerships and focus
them on action, not information sharing. Build on the CNCI
effort, as part of a larger and more transparent comprehensive
effort to secure cyberspace.
It is a lengthy list, but this reflects the overarching importance
of cyberspace to our Nation and the complexity of the problems involved
in securing it. I believe that the issues we identified are central for
improving national security and the 60-day review must address them.
Two recommendations deserve additional scrutiny in the context of
the 60-day review. These are governance and regulation. We had a
lengthy set of discussions in the CSIS commission on how best to
organize for cyberspace. We considered many agencies for the lead role,
including the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the FBI,
the General Services Administration, and the intelligence community.
Three problems drove us to reject an agency-led approach. First,
the mandate of any one agency would have to be greatly expanded to
fully cover cybersecurity. Agency legal authorities differ widely and
none--law enforcement, military or intelligence--are by themselves
adequate for the range of cyber problems. We did not think that a super
agency with broad domestic and international powers made sense. Public
perception is important. Giving the intelligence community the lead in
cybersecurity, although initially attractive to some of us because of
the strong capabilities these agencies possess, would trigger powerful
antibodies in the privacy community and the public, particularly after
the experience of the previous administration's warrantless
surveillance program and the struggles over FISA renewal.
The previous administration gave the Department of Homeland
Security a central role in cybersecurity. We concluded that this was a
mistake. While DHS has an important role to play, it lacks the
competencies to deal with the range of issues involved in cybersecurity
or to successfully engage in conflict with foreign militaries and
intelligence services. DHS also lacks the interagency stature to direct
other, more powerful agencies.
Giving DOD the lead could be interpreted as ``militarizing'' the
internet and would likely also provoke a reaction from both the privacy
and the international communities. Foreign nations track U.S. policies
closely and a decision to give DOD the lead in securing cyber space
would be interpreted as a decision by the United States to make
military action the focus of its cyber efforts. This would not be in
our interest, as we will need to build a collaborative international
approach to improve security.
At the end of the discussion, we concluded that only the White
House had the authority to bring many large and powerful agencies to
follow a common agenda and to coordinate with each other. A successful
approach to cybersecurity blends intelligence, law enforcement,
military, diplomatic, and domestic regulatory functions. Coordinating
these various functions can be best done from the White House. In
recommending a White House lead, we emphasized that a ``cyber czar'' is
not the right solution. The new administration went through a brief
fascination with czars of various shapes and flavors for different
issues; our view is that for cyber security, the overly centralized
approach implied by a czar will fail. The White House and only the
White House can set strategy and policy, ensure that agencies are
following them and resolve agency disputes.
Regulation is the second issue that deserves extra attention. Our
report concluded that the market would never deliver adequate security
and the Government must establish regulatory thresholds for critical
infrastructure. We proposed a new, more flexible approach to developing
regulation that was based on close cooperation with industry in
developing standards and an avoidance of prescriptive regulations that
spell out in precise detail what companies must do.
Regulation poses a number of challenges. The United States does not
need regulations that are costly to implement yet deliver little in the
way of improved security. Nor does the United States need regulations
that are so diluted as to be meaningless. Finding the required balance
will be difficult, but if we fail to use regulation to improve our
national cyber security, if we do not identify mandatory actions to
secure the digital infrastructure, the Obama administration will have
no more success than any of its predecessors.
The stimulus package has inadvertently complicated the issue of
regulation. The package includes significant funding for infrastructure
projects, such as the Smart Grid. The package envisions that spending
on infrastructure will build security into new projects. All this is
good, but we then come to the question of what precisely needs to be
done to make these new projects secure? Unfortunately, we do not know
the answer to this and we do not have the time or people needed to
develop that answer. A failure to invest in infrastructure
modernization for more than a decade has makes it impossible to build
both quickly and securely.
``Smart Grid'' projects are an example of this problem. It uses
advanced meters to measure the flow of electricity and allow it to be
better managed. These new meters are based on internet technology.
Unfortunately, if the new ``smart'' meters are not secure, they can be
``hacked,'' taken over by attackers, and used to disrupt the delivery
of electricity. The United States does not have the guidelines it needs
to guide make infrastructure secure.
I am not recommending that we delay stimulus investments while we
sort out the requirements for cybersecurity. The most pressing task
facing the new administration is to mitigate the suffering that the
recession has brought and to take the steps needed to reduce
unemployment and restore growth. Infrastructure investment is an
important part of this. Years of underinvestment in infrastructure have
put us in this unfortunate situation. However, regulation can play a
role in remedying this problem, by giving Government the ability to
identify and mandate actions that mitigate new vulnerabilities. For
example, a requirement that electrical companies strengthen
authentication of identity on their control networks would improve
security. But if we do not build the regulatory foundation now, the
United States will be put at risk, and the task of laying the
foundation falls squarely on the 60-day review.
Regulation can also help reshape and strengthen public-private
partnerships. For more than a decade, the public dialogue has revolved
around threadbare ideas on the need to defer to the private sector as
it owns and operates the bulk of the critical infrastructure and on
information sharing as an alternative to Government mandates. In fact,
the result has been to make public-private partnership less attractive
or less important. The partnership groups often serve a largely
``representational'' function rather than one that is oriented towards
action. Companies do not have ``skin in the game.'' Regulate them, and
they will come. Regulation is the key to improving public private
partnerships, particularly if these partnerships are tasked with
developing and maintain the standards upon which regulation must be
based.
This administration has a unique opportunity. The United States has
pursued a market-led approach to cybersecurity for more than a decade.
This approach is inadequate. Now is the time to identify where
regulation is needed to improve cybersecurity. Our recommendation was
to begin with critical infrastructure--if a service is truly critical,
we should not be afraid to require action to secure it.
I began by asking where we are today in cybersecurity and answered
that, from one perspective, we are in remarkably bad shape. From
another perspective, however, we are at a moment of tremendous
opportunity. This administration can define an integrated and
comprehensive Federal approach to securing cyberspace, something no
previous administration has been able to do. The complexity of the
problem means that it will take much longer than 60 days to put in
place the policies, structures, and regulations we will need. However,
if the 60-day review can establish a clear governance structure led
from the White House, if it lays out a broad plan of action for moving
ahead, including the development of a comprehensive national security
strategy and the use of regulatory authorities to secure critical
infrastructure, and if this administration acts upon it, the review
will be a success.
Ms. Clarke. We thank you for your testimony.
I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony, and I
will remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to
question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for questions. This first
question goes to the entire panel. You all have spent a great
deal of time putting together cyber recommendations for this
administration. I want to express my gratitude for your work.
The statements during the campaign and the decision to do a
comprehensive review suggest that this administration is
committed to a real change in our approach. My question is: How
do we judge whether the review has been a success, and what
specific things should we be looking at to determine if we are
moving in the right direction?
Mr. Powner. A couple of thoughts here. Looking at whether
the review is a success, and echoing what Dr. Lewis mentioned,
there have been already a fair number of very good
recommendations through the CSIS report. Clearly, the experts
we talked to had some additional recommendations. One, that
that review needs to take into consideration those many
recommendations. The other thing is looking back on this
historically, even back to the mid-1980's, we really need to
look at a new organization. DHS-led hasn't really cut it.
Recently, an 18-sector approach where all sectors are created
equal, I am not certain that that is the right approach either.
Moving forward we need to look at certain things: A new
organizational structure; greater prioritization; and clearly
more accountability for those organizations that are in charge.
Ms. Clarke. Anyone have anything else to add to that?
Mr. Lewis. Well, we know what a bad plan looks like because
we have lived through at least a couple of them. I think that
if we were looking at this plan, we would want clear
leadership, some comprehensive strategies that include both
international and regulatory, that look at combining
intelligence, military, law enforcement, diplomatic engagement.
We would want a commitment to action. At the end of the day, if
we see those three things--leadership, planning, action--we
should be better off.
Ms. Clarke. Let me then move on and direct this question to
Mr. Powner. I know that the CSIS Commission met with the review
team last week. Have you met with the review team yet?
Mr. Powner. No, we have not. We are in the process of
trying to get that scheduled.
Ms. Clarke. Would you please let us know how we can help
facilitate that meeting?
Mr. Powner. We will.
Ms. Clarke. My next question, and it is ironic because I
understand that Mr. Beckstrom has joined us in the audience,
and I would like to thank him for his service and express my
regret for our inability to retain his talent and expertise.
But late on Friday, Mr. Rod Beckstrom announced that he was
resigning as Director of the National Cybersecurity Center. I
think this is a loss for the community and it is unfortunate
that Mr. Beckstrom's skills weren't put to good use. In his
resignation letter he acknowledges the critical importance of
the NSA, but said that their dominance in cybersecurity today
is a bad strategy.
Can you all comment on what you agree or disagree with in
these comments and what role the NSA should play alongside DHS?
Mr. Charney.
Mr. Charney. Yes. So there is no question that the center
of technical expertise in the Government, particularly on the
operational side, is within NSA. However, I agree with the
comments made earlier, that at the end of the day, if you want
the public to trust that the networks are being secured well
and in a transparent fashion, the mission cannot reside in NSA.
So I think it is really important to empower DHS to take the
necessary operational role and have a relationship with NSA
that captures and utilizes their technical expertise.
Ms. Clarke. Anyone else want to comment? Okay. I am going
to move on to my next question.
On March 24, this subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled
``Securing the Smart Grid from Cyber Attack''. We will be
discussing a number of technological issues related to the new
advanced metering technologies that are being developed and
deployed.
But this question has to do with policy. What Federal
agency is in charge of defending against the cyber attack
launched by a nation-state against our electric grid and what
agencies do you think should be in charge of defending against
such an attack? Any thoughts on that issue?
Mr. Yoran. Ms. Chairwoman, this is an issue that we have
been trying to tackle for some time, initially with a National
Cyber Incident Response Working Group, co-chaired by the
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the
Department of Defense. It is an issue that I think is one that
ought to be a key focus for Melissa Hathaway as she conducts
her 60-day review, understanding exactly what the authorities
are, the priorities, the technical capabilities that exist in
various pockets of the Federal Government, and how they can be
brought to bear most effectively so that that planning can
occur before any time of crisis.
Mr. Lewis. I was just going to add, for me the answer would
be FERC or the NRC or maybe the Department of Energy. I say
that because they have the relationships with the companies.
They know how the stuff works. They are the people who have the
regulatory authorities. The last thing you want is somebody new
charging in in a crisis and saying, ``I am in charge, do what I
say.'' So I would say look at the folks who are doing this now.
One of the things that this committee has done that has
been very useful is hold those regulatory agencies accountable
and get them to move out a bit more smartly. I think that would
be a good direction to continue.
Mr. Powner. Chairwoman Clarke, if I can just add to your
question on who is responsible for defending--and I want to
make sure we are real clear on this. If it is a response--if we
are answering that in terms of response I agree it is muddy. It
could be various Federal agencies and entities in charge of
that response, depending on the severity of the attack. But in
charge of defending the grid, it is those public utility
companies that own the grid.
Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you very much. My time is up. I now
recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Lungren, for questions.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you all for being here. I appreciate the contributions
you all have made and there are so many questions to ask. Let
me just try one very, very quickly.
Dr. Lewis, you were very specific about saying that the
person who should be in charge of the leader of the new
comprehensive cybersecurity ought to be in the White House.
Mr. Charney, if I understand what you said, I thought you
felt the DHS could be stood up to have that responsibility.
Mr. Charney. Sir, to be clear, there is a difference
between developing a strategy and coordinating it through the
Federal agencies and the individual responsibility of the
various agencies.
Mr. Lungren. Right.
Mr. Charney. So if you are going to look at a national
strategy that has to determine some very difficult questions
like when is a cyber attack an act of war and what is a
proportional response, those kinds of key decisions are to be
done at the White House level. But you also need an operational
capability, things like US-CERT, an agency to help the other
agencies deploy best practices. So I view DHS as more
operational of implementing the strategy, but I think strategic
elements and the cross-government cooperation has to be at the
White House.
Mr. Lewis. I agree completely with that. I think if you
look at the agencies, I agree completely FBI has a role, DOD
has a role, DHS has a role, the intelligence----
Mr. Lungren. I understand they all have roles. My question
has been--I think Mr. Charney responded to it and I have
articulated it before, but I am concerned about a lack of
urgency not only in the Congress, in the White House, in the
public domain with respect to the threat, No. 1; and, No. 2,
how we do it?
As we have seen DHS develop and pull itself together, I
think it is actually starting to get its sea legs and frankly I
think doing a far much better job today than it was 2, 3, 4, 5
years ago. That is part of what happens when you stand up an
agency like that.
But there is the question of a sense of urgency. The
President and his particular delegate in the White House can
set the policy, but how do you make sure people follow it? We
all know CIOs in the various departments and agencies have a
natural protective mechanism about how it ought to be done. We
understand that you have got DOD, you have got NSA, you have
got the FBI and all of them, and all of them believe they have
a certain respected expertise.
How do you engage that sense of urgency throughout the
Federal establishment that has not been there? I am not trying
to blame anybody. I am just trying to state a fact because it
hasn't been there in the public either. How do we leapfrog to
that position where we have that policy established at the
White House on the one hand, but then we have the
implementation or operational motivation and authority? Because
if the various individuals responsible for the various agencies
and departments think they can just kind of shrug when they get
the call from the person at DHS, it doesn't drive what I want
to be driven here. Mr. Yoran.
Mr. Yoran. Sir, I think that is a very important issue,
when they get the call from DHS, that they have to feel a sense
of urgency in getting it fixed or, more importantly, not feel
like they can rely on DHS doing the monitoring, where the
intelligence community is protecting them. Everybody has to
feel a sense of responsibility and ultimately be held
accountable for the protection of the information and the
systems that they manage and need in order to accomplish their
core mission. Until the Executive branch or any branch of
Government holds senior leadership accountable for flaws in the
security culture, lapses in security which are a result of lack
of due care or negligence if you want, until there is some
accountability there, I don't think we are going to see
meaningful change.
Mr. Lungren. Let me follow up and ask a slightly different
way. That is, how do we maintain those people that have the
quality that can do that job, and how do we attract others to
those kinds of jobs? In other words, you can't pay them as much
as the private sector can pay them. It is like when people go
in the military service or do some other type of service. They
do it in part because they are making a contribution, but they
know their contribution is going to be utilized. It is going to
be valuable. It is going to be effective.
How do we raise that level of appreciation so it is not
just accountability, but it is also responsibility in the sense
that it is recognized throughout the establishment, both
private sector and public sector?
Ms. Davidson. I believe that one of these--this is one of
the issues I tried to touch upon, which is if you don't
actually have a career path, you see there are people whose job
it is to do information technology. Information technology will
continue to be the janitorial service of many organizations
where we are cleaning up other people's messes. It absolutely
is critical. One of the things that we do to try to make people
understand how critical it is is to, quite honestly in our own
company, to go into various meetings and say, let me show that
a particular tack isn't theoretical; I am going to hack your
software. This is exactly how I can do this. This is exactly
how I can corrupt a system.
That creates some of the awareness. It is scary but it is
necessary. Either that or we wait until we get a real attack.
In terms of, you are talking about compensation trying--we
do actually elevate those security professionals to give them
some recognition within their jobs so they get training, they
get recognition. It is recognized as a specialty that is held
in esteem. As you point out, you can't always give people more
money, but you can give people respect. I think you need both
of those to show what is possible and to show that the, if you
will, the warriors who defend it do a good job at it, and that
creates the environment by which people who are able to
actually do that kind of work are respected.
Mr. Lungren. Could I ask one real quick question, maybe for
a quick response? That is, how will we enforce the new Davidson
doctrine that you articulated to protect our cyberspace?
Mr. Lewis. Let me try. All of us have worked in the Federal
Government for a long time, and if you want power, there are a
couple of things that give you power: Access to the President,
control of the budget, control of policy. For me, the only
place you are going to do that is in the White House. If I have
the access to the President, control of your budget, and I can
say what the policy is and know that the President or the Vice
President or the National Security Adviser will back me up, I
will get agencies to do whatever I want. That is what we need.
So you want to know who is going to enforce the Davidson
doctrine? It is a good name for it, by the way. You know, we
have to put that at the White House.
Ms. Clarke. I now recognize Mr. Lujan from New Mexico for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am going to just
jump right into this, because there are many questions I think
that need to be asked, and I am not sure if we will run out of
time with doing this.
But specifically with what we are discussing today with
understanding that DHS is the lead agency for the Nation's
cybersecurity and the key components that exist within DHS,
what are your thoughts--and I don't know if we want to start
with Mr. Powner, and then I will move down the line a bit--but
from the perspective of having DHS move away from their near
exclusive internal focus on cybersecurity issues and more
toward development and deployment of software and hardware
solutions to protect critical infrastructure projects?
Mr. Powner. We have done a lot of work with the DHS. DHS
clearly is the lead cybersecurity focal point for the Nation.
Even working with our critical infrastructure owners, if you
look at policy and law and how that is laid out, it is pretty
clear that they have not lived up to those responsibilities. So
the question going forward is, do we want to keep working with
them as the operational entity that is the lead or do we just
designate them an operational role and put someone else in
charge of primarily coordinating with the private sector, with
the intelligence community, and with the military
organizations? We would think the latter.
Mr. Charney. I think it is really important to get the
organizational structure right. Every Federal agency needs to
deploy IT systems for their business operations, and therefore,
every Federal agency needs a CIO and a CSO, a chief security
officer, who manages security at that agency. Now, when you
have a distributed organization--and certainly Microsoft is
one--you end up with a lot of different, essentially business
groups, that are running IT that will service their business
mission, and that is fine.
The role that DHS should play in coordination with NST that
sets standards for civilian agencies, and NSA because of their
technical expertise, is to decide what the minimum bar is for
security that should be required to be implemented by the
various agencies. You know, in any environment there are things
that you have to do, things that would be good to do, and best
practices that you might like to deploy. Understanding what is
required versus what is recommended versus what is a best
practice is really important.
But I don't think you can have, for example, DHS making
hardware and software decisions for the various agencies
because the hardware and software that is deployed has to map
to the agency mission. But DHS could say, as a requirement of
deploying whatever you are going to deploy, there are certain
security things that must be done: You must have a documented
information security program; you must have technical controls
and people controls in place to manage risk; you need an
incident response plan in place because bad things will happen.
I think that is the appropriate function of DHS.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Yoran, before you answer that, I think that
is a perfect segue into an issue that I want to raise.
Within our New Mexico DOE and New Mexico laboratories,
there is a real opportunity with the work that they are working
on to improve the Nation's cybersecurity posture by bringing
the resources to bear on this critical problem. So in speaking
specifically to some of the IT teams that are being discussed
and making sure that we have a centralized point to be able to
have access, whether it is to the President or to others as we
are talking about this issue, what are your thoughts in taking
advantage of the expertise that lies in some of our Nation's
DOE laboratories that are working with specific issues, some
which are partnered with DOD responsibilities as well?
Mr. Charney. It is obviously critically important to grab
expertise wherever it resides, and one of the things DHS should
be doing is discovering and then propagating best practices
across the Government and the private sector. So I think that
would be a key thing to do.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, if I may shift a
little bit and get your perspective.
As we are moving forward with the deployment of Smart Grid,
including the importance of communications and the potential
threats that could exist from attacks, what is the importance
of making sure that we are taking into consideration the
elements and inventories across the country and making sure we
have adequate protections for our critical infrastructure like
electricity, renewable generation areas, and the backbone of
really what will essentially be our Smart Grid?
Ms. Davidson. I do think that there are entities who are
looking at that in their role with the utilities. But if I
could actually back up a little earlier than that, if you think
of this as a supply chain, one of the things that actually
needs to change that none of us touched upon, part of the
reason we have these difficulties--I don't think anybody sits
down and says I think I am going to deploy a system that is
hopelessly insecure and will leak like a sieve. It isn't merely
awareness. It is that a lot of the people who are building
these at the grassroots level do not understand that they have
any responsibility and they don't learn to think like an
attacker. That starts with the university system.
It is not just computer science and electrical engineering,
it is people who are building these control systems. If you can
change one thing, if you can get the people designing and
building those things to assume, think like a hacker, assume
your system will be attacked, then they will design
differently. They will build differently. They will deploy
differently. By the time someone like a utility gets something,
they will still have to ask intelligent questions in
procurement, but they won't have to sit around and wonder, I
wonder if anybody had a clue whether somebody is going to try
to attack the power grid?
We have to move the supply chain for security-aware people
all the way back into the university systems. Unfortunately,
having gone to the universities--I believe Scott has as well--
you get a resounding nonresponse from universities when you
ask, do you teach secure coding practice in all of your
engineering and control system disciplines?
Mr. Lewis. On the question, the national labs are actually
places that you could look for. Both Sandia, which has done
some excellent work, also Idaho National labs, NERC, FERC, NST,
Department of Energy, these are all the people who could help
us make sure that Smart Grid is secure.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Lujan, we will be covering that territory
in about 2 weeks when we do our Smart Grid hearings. So this is
a precursor to it.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Broun of Georgia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
First, I want to respectfully disagree with those of you
all that think that the White House is the place to put central
control of this problem, for the simple reason that I am
disappointed that we haven't been more aggressive in our last
administration, and I don't know what kind of aggressiveness we
are going to have in this administration to try to solve this
problem.
As I have learned more and more about it I am extremely,
extremely concerned about our national security, not only from
a military perspective but an economic perspective.
At home, I have utilized Koperski, I have used Norton, I
have used McAfee to try to make sure that my own home computer
networks are secure and have a firewall that are in place. I
have just recently learned how inadequate those programs are.
So I think we have to have a national effort to develop some
kind of very, very strong national security and economic
security type of plan.
But I think this committee and the Department of Homeland
Security is the best place to do that, for the simple reason
that in the administration you have personalities and different
focuses and those sorts of things. I do agree we need to have a
central focus, but I don't think the White House is that place.
I think this committee ought to be setting policy, and not the
White House frankly; and the Department of Homeland Security I
think is the best way to try to coordinate things within the
interagency efforts to make sure that we stay secure, whether
it is DOD, Department of Energy or all the other sources as
well as within the private sector.
Having said all that, I believe in the private sector, I
believe in the marketplace, and I think innovation and
development comes probably best in the private sector and not
from governmental sources. Can the Government secure our
cyberspace without private sector involvement, and how much
private sector involvement do we need in that? I just throw
that open to the panel.
Mr. Powner. Well, clearly 85 percent of the cyber-critical
infrastructure associated with this Nation is owned by someone
other than the Federal Government. So the Federal Government
can't do it. The key is partnering with them, where those
private sector owners view the Federal Government as a credible
partner that provides a valuable service. I think that is what
has been determined with DHS with their US-CERT operations
where we share threat information. The message really going
forward is we in the Federal Government, whether it is DHS or
whether it is the White House, they need to do a much better
job where they are viewed as a credible partner in helping the
private sector secure it.
Mr. Yoran. I would just add to that a little bit. I agree
that centralized coordination is required. I think the
Department of Homeland Security's key role can be in protecting
the dot.gov, the Federal civilian agencies. I don't think the
DHS can effectively lead sort of offensive capabilities we
would need in cyber or counterintelligence capabilities we
would need in cyber, nor do I think the Department of Defense
would subjugate their cybersecurity efforts, which are
necessary for conducting warfare today, to the Department of
Homeland Security.
However, I agree with you entirely that the best thing
Government can do is fund some fundamental long-term research,
but ultimately rely on the private sector and commercial
products for the development of IT technologies that have more
security and IT security technologies that have more capability
by refining their requirements and using their procurement and
acquisition capabilities to drive those products and features
into the commercial software versus trying to develop
technologies in Government development efforts.
Mr. Broun. My time is about up but I appreciate y'all's
comments. I have got a hundred questions to ask you all and
don't have the time to do that. I appreciate y'all's efforts.
I see this as a critical national security interest. In
fact, just in the commercial sector, if we have an attack,
which we are having every day on commercial entities, if we
have an attack on our commercial entities, it can totally wreck
this Nation. So I think we have got to find a solution, and I
look forward to your answers that--I am going to give you all
some questions in written form and and I appreciate y'all's
candid answers to that.
I think we need to act and act now. Government doesn't do
that very well. It is very slow in acting, and that is the
reason why I want to try to get the private sector involved as
much as we possibly can, because I think the private sector can
be more innovative and can act quicker and can find real
solutions to this. We need to have some coordinated efforts,
and I think the Department of Homeland Security is the best way
to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Clarke. The Chairwoman recognizes for 5 minutes the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Austria.
Mr. Austria. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. To our committee,
thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate it very much.
I want to follow up on some of the questions that were
asked earlier and more on the role of homeland security in your
opinion. When you look at the jurisdiction, the electricity,
the grid was brought up earlier, and you testified that you
know it has fallen on the Department of Energy. Sometimes we
see things intertwined between the different departments,
whether it be DOD, Department of Justice. What do you see as
Homeland Security's role or jurisdiction as a department? I
would open that up to the entire panel.
Mr. Yoran. I think that Homeland Security's greatest impact
can be summed up in three key areas. The first is in US-CERT
series of programs and operations to help protect the dot.gov,
the Federal civilian systems and agencies.
The second is in cross-critical infrastructure issues.
Clearly, the Department of Energy and other regulatory bodies
define security standards, measure their effectiveness, and
have many levers for forcing change in the private sector.
I think the third is sort of working on issues where the
failure of one critical infrastructure or the security levels
in one critical infrastructure don't address the requirements
of another industry, of another sector of our economy.
The third area is in interaction with the private sector
through a series of well-defined public/private partnerships
with specific objectives and also with value-add and incentives
in the private sector for their voluntary participation.
Mr. Charney. I suggest the way to think about this is
separating out the horizontal from the vertical. There are a
lot of things in IT that are horizontal on which all the
verticals depend. So robust authentication, knowing who is
connecting to your network, you need to know whether you are
telecom, energy, or something else.
There are other things that are unique to vertical sectors.
The energy SCADA systems may be different than phone SCADA
systems. As a result of that, I think when you think of DHS'
role, I view it as kind of the horizontal base security, and
then the sectors and their regulatory agencies have to focus on
the vertical uniqueness.
Mr. Austria. Thank you for that. That is why I do agree
with you. I think we need to have clear leadership and a
comprehensive strategy and a commitment to take action in those
areas so that is much better defined.
Let me jump over to the public/private partnership because
I do agree with you on that. I have always believed that the
private sector, which designs and deploys and maintains much of
our Nation's critical infrastructure is far ahead of Government
in their ability to detect, to attribute, and to defend against
a cyber attack.
Correct me if you think I am wrong, but isn't that, again,
a reason just to follow up on some of the other questions with
the public/private sector, that we really should be pursuing
this to really achieve national security when it comes to
cyberspace?
Mr. Charney. Sir, the answer is yes. We all here I think
are big fans of private sector innovation, but I will say I
wrote years ago that you couldn't make a market case for the
Cold War. I mean, there are certain things in national security
where the markets are not designed to address the problem,
because when we build products for market we know that we have
a large customer base that is global and very price-sensitive.
Some of things that the national security community requires is
very specific and expensive.
So it has long been my view that you need a symbiotic
relationship where--and I described this in my testimony--where
you figure out what the market will provide, what national
security needs are, and how Government can help bridge that
gap. I don't think you can rely on markets alone to bridge the
gap because markets aren't designed to do that any more than
they are designed to protect national security and provide law
enforcement mechanisms. These are things that we tax people for
and make them pay for from the Government.
Ms. Davidson. I do agree with Scott largely, but I also
think that the Government can be a smarter buyer. Even
something as simple as some transparency in procurement around
what vendors do and do not do in terms of security, I don't
think in many cases the questions have ever been asked. It is
certainly asked at the Defense Department level or the
intelligence. They want to know how you engineered your
software. But the average garden-variety agency does not ask
that. Why would that change things?
This is something I think, unfortunately, women can
understand better than men, but I call it the bathing suit
test. If you have to go out in public in June in a bathing
suit, along about March you are going to put it on and you are
going to say I can't believe I look like this; I better get in
shape before I have to go out in public.
If people had to disclose, so to speak, their development
processes related to security, you would want to look a lot
better by the time you are actually filling in the form. That
per se is not going to cure all our ills, but it will improve
what people are buying or at least they will know what they are
getting and not getting, and they can make smarter decisions as
purchasers.
That will not, as Scott I think would agree with, mean that
we are going to--commercial software, unless it has been
necessarily engineered to the highest level of software
assurance that, for example, the intelligence community could
want. But even raising the baseline would be a very good start.
It would save people a lot of money they are spending now,
trying to patch their security and make it harder for bad guys
to do what they do. Make them work harder.
Mr. Austria. I understand that my time is up. Thank you. I
do agree with my colleagues that, you know, cyberspace security
is critical to our national security. I have other questions
that I will be glad to submit to our panel. But thank you,
thank you for your time.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. The Chairwoman now recognizes the
Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I was
listening to the testimony in the rear but I was multitasking,
too.
This is basically to each panel member. With the
information that you have available to you, do you think the
United States is prepared for a major cyber incident?
Mr. Powner. No, we are clearly not as prepared as we should
be. I will go back, several years' work that we did for this
subcommittee, I think several Congresses ago, looking at
internet recovery. You can look at what happened with 9/11,
Katrina, on how we recovered major portions of the internet.
There were major lessons learned in that.
The question going forward, do we have--one of the
requirements in our current national strategy is a joint
public/private internet recovery plan if we have a major, major
attack. We still don't have that plan. You need a plan. You
need to exercise that plan. So I think today we are not
prepared.
Mr. Lewis. You can look at the experience of 9/11, and I
hate to bring it up because it is painful, but one of our co-
chairs who couldn't be here today, Harry Raduege was the
Director of the Defense Communications Network. On that day, he
got phone calls from all the major service providers, all the
big telecom companies, all the big IT companies saying, how can
we help, what can we do to restore service? I know that Dick
Clarke, who was also at the White House then, got similar
calls.
So you had two people, people who knew who to call, they
had the existing relationships, and they knew how to do things.
They knew how to move trucks from Ohio or from Virginia to New
York or to Washington to rebuild services. We don't have that
today in cyberspace, and that is one of the things we
desperately need.
Ms. Davidson. I would like to tell a story in response, a
short one. That is, in the 1920's, there was a Marine Corps
colonel who realized the next war would be with Japan, and it
is because of him that the Marine Corps developed amphibious
warfare capability. He saw this in the 1920's, which was long
before December 7, 1941. So we don't have that much time.
There are people who are sounding the warning. There are
people who are trying to do things differently. We are not
going to have 21 years to get it right. So we do need to act
now. No, we are not prepared.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Yoran.
Mr. Yoran. Sir, I would say that the nefariousness of cyber
is the fact that we are experiencing the 9/11 in cyber. It just
doesn't have the tremendous visibility.
For over 10 years now, for over a decade now, we have had
significant incidents going on with foreign adversaries, and
our national response has basically been to look the other way
or occasionally have an article in the news media about it. So
because there is no catastrophic visible outcome, we sort of
lie in bed at night and are able to sleep, not realizing
exactly how much damage is occurring. So we are not prepared.
Mr. Charney. I would never go against my esteemed
colleagues on this point. I would point out, however, that it
is important to focus on the nature of the attack so you can
figure out your strategy for defending. There are attacks
against confidentiality, we have heard a lot about that, where
data is taken. There are attacks against integrity where people
alter critical systems or data that you rely upon. There are
attacks against availability, and then the systems go down. In
the availability attacks, I mean one goal is always to keep
five-ninths of availability, keep the networks up. But the
other part of any strategy has to be about how fast you can
reconstitute the capabilities if the capabilities fail.
So this is one of the reasons it is so important to have a
comprehensive strategy, because when you think about how you
are going to reconstitute across multiple networks and maybe
across multiple time zones, it is actually quite challenging.
You have to figure out what your strategy is for
reconstitution, who is in charge, roles and responsibilities,
what is the interface to the private sector that owns 85
percent of this infrastructure. The availability problem is in
some ways different than the confidentiality and the integrity
problem. It is important to focus on all of them.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I would like to say, Madam Chairwoman,
that what we have just heard is very troubling, I think to me
and the rest of the committee, that we have some work to do. I
think perhaps at our next hearing we need to bring some of the
people who have the primary responsibility for the plan, or
whatever we are operating under, and see if we can get some
idea as to what they are doing to keep us safe. But I am real
concerned about it. I would say that both the subcommittee and
I as Chairman on the full committee will give this our
undivided attention, and I would look to people like yourselves
to help provide the leadership, getting us where we need to be.
I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Member Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Madam Chairwoman, I just wanted to tell you
this is an outstanding panel that I thank you for putting
together. I thank all of you for being here. We could go on
with this for hours. Some of us will probably submit some
written questions. I know we have already begged your
indulgence for the time you have given us, but hopefully if you
could respond to those in a timely fashion, we could maybe talk
to you later, too, as well. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond expeditiously in
writing to those questions.
Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
