How you would apply the FIPS 199 security categorizations to decide if each of the information security risk mitigations (“safeguards”) described in the FGDC guidelines is needed?
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To apply FIPS 199 security categorizations to determine the necessity of information security safeguards, first identify the information types and assess the impact of potential breaches on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Assign impact levels (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH) for each security objective based on the severity of potential adverse effects. Categorize the information by summarizing these impact levels, which will guide the selection of appropriate safeguards. The need for specific safeguards, as described in the FGDC guidelines, is determined by the highest impact level identified in the security categorization. For instance, if confidentiality is categorized as HIGH, safeguards addressing high-impact confidentiality risks must be implemented. This approach ensures that security measures are aligned with the criticality and sensitivity of the information.
The FIPS 199 security Categories were made to help determine the impact of breaches to security objectives on information systems and the information they hold. The categorizations should be analyzed in addition to potential threats and vulnerabilities that exist within the systems when trying to understand the risk to an organization. The Security Objectives that are sought to be maintained are the Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA) of information and Information Systems. When analyzing the risk to information, a Security Category expresses the impact (low, moderate, high) against each Security Objective of an Information System and the type of information within it.
The FGDC guidelines provide standardized procedures for identifying the risks of sharing potentially sensitive data for the benefit of the geospatial community (Government agencies, private organizations, and individual civilians) at large. Decisions are made on the safeguarding of geospatial data based on the assessment of potential risks to national security and the benefits of dissemination.
To apply the FIPS 199 security categorization to geospatial data, an understanding of the type of data that is being shared including the impact of potential loss to the Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability of the information and the system it resides in must be achieved. This can be done by assessing the level of impact on an organization’s assets, core operations/functions, and staff against the security objectives in the event of a breach. After achieving and understanding the Security Categorization of the data, it becomes possible to determine the appropriate safeguards, if at all, to implement. The safeguards should be in balance with the benefits of disseminating the information, if the security risk (discovered during security categorization) is lower than the benefit of sharing the data, safeguarding is not Justified. Safeguarding is also not justified if it is analyzed that the information that no proprietary/confidential information would aid an attack. If it has been determined that there could be adverse or catastrophic impacts to the government, private organizations, and the general public, a decision can be made to change or restrict the data as appropriate and should be documented. Periodic re-assessments of the safeguards on the sharing of geospatial including the decisions that have been made should be done.
If I were to apply FIPS 199 security categorizations (low, moderate, and high) to determine the need for safeguards as described in the FGDC guidelines, I would begin by categorizing the information systems based on the potential impact on the security objectives of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. For low-impacted systems, where the risk of breach is minimal, I would recommend data modification or removal to address confidentiality and availability concerns. This safeguard would be sufficient because the potential damage is limited, and maintaining availability is more critical than the exactness of the data. For moderate-impact systems, where a breach could cause more significant harm, restricting access becomes more critical to protect confidentiality and integrity. The damage from unauthorized access or modification is more severe, so stronger controls are required.
For high-impacted systems, where a breach could have catastrophic consequences, strict access controls are essential. Data modification could compromise the integrity of critical information, so limiting access ensures that confidentiality and integrity are preserved at the highest level.This approach ensures that each safeguard is applied appropriately based on the impact level and potential risk to the organization.