Assignment of Impact Levels and Security Categorization section helped me to the guidance that goes into assigning security impact levels and security categorizations. The figure of the four step security categorization process lays out the process but warns that you must familiarize yourself with FIPS 199. The picture of the SP800-60 process roadmap is also very informative. It names to process step, activities with the step, as well as stakeholder roles. It is so many connecting parts that it gets intimidating just thinking about having to put one of these together.
The guidelines in NIST 800-60 V1R1 are very useful in helping you categorize your information. However, they can be complicated and hard to understand. Even though the process might seem overwhelming, try to be flexible and use available resources. Remember that the ultimate goal is to keep your sensitive data secure.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has long been instrumental in formulating guidelines that govern the handling of digital information. One of its eminent guidelines is the NIST Special Publication 800-60 V1R1, a blueprint for mapping types of information and information systems to security categories. The document underscores the vitality of classified standing of information and systems in achieving maximum information security.
The NIST 800-60 V1R1 essentially structures a sturdy, robust framework, facilitating the allocation of information systems to high, moderate, or low impact security categories. This triage system is highly pivotal in tailoring adequate security controls, guiding an organization towards a standardized security posture. It is a significant resource in the development of System Security Plans (SSPs), Risk Assessments, and Contingency Plans.
Furthermore, NIST 800 60 V1R1 equips organizations to adhere to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), reaffirming their compliance with mandatory security regulations. Its holistic coverage of a diverse assortment of information types is particularly noteworthy, encompassing not just traditional textual information but also auditory and visual content.
In conclusion, the NIST 800 60 V1R1 guide is a fine epitome of a comprehensive and versatile security categorization tool. Its in-depth mapping capacity and meticulous consideration of varied information systems fortify its standing as a sacrosanct document in the realm of cybersecurity frameworks.
Micheal, I totally align with your post that NIST 800 60 V1R1 not only equips organizations to comply with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), but its robust coverage supports diverse information types, including visual and auditory content. Also you did well bringing into picture that this guide embodies a comprehensive security framework with an exceptional mapping capacity.
This segment of the NIST guidelines covers overall security categorization and classification of information systems. As NIST lays out, these organizational charts and documentations are important because they provide a clear overall view of how and what to prioritize, what risks apply, and how these systems are managed. What struck me about this document is how comprehensive and thorough this documentation is. Being able to clearly lay out and identify an organization’s systems, identify what risks they face, define their criticality, and abstract how they would impact an organization if compromised is vital to creating a comprehensive security plan that makes sure all avenues of vulnerability are covered and accounted for by information systems admins. Having a clear framework and template to start with in your classification streamlines the process from top to bottom and allows for a clear delegation of what issues and risks to focus on overall
I agree that having a clear framework and template significantly helps with designating the severe issues and risks within an organization. Even outside of this, having a well-written security plan helps auditors in understanding the responses to some risks, including what should be mitigated, accepted, removed, etc. Through thorough security planning comes a more prepared organization.
Absolutely. It’s interesting to see how, though these documents are certainly designed to fit a specific role, their overall concepts extend beyond the material itself to other subjects. These procedures, though they may change, provide an interesting perspective on how to expand and create a thorough plan for security response and calculate risks to systems as a whole
The NIST 800-60 V1R1 guide serves as an integral resource in facilitating the mapping of various types of information and information systems to their corresponding security categories. Its utilization is paramount in enhancing the fortification of data and safeguarding diverse information systems. Precisely, this resourceful guide is relied upon due to its comprehensive approach in categorizing information based on sensitivity levels; High, Moderate, Low and potential impact of a breach. Consequently, this enables strategic implementation of appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive data and heighten the overall system security. In a world characterized by data breaches and escalating cybersecurity threats, adhering to NIST guidelines is fundamental to reinforcing data integrity. Therefore, the importance of employing the NIST 800-60 V1R1 guide cannot be understated, given its functionally indispensable role in aligning types of information to relevant security categories.
While I do agree that NIST’s guidelines towards risk, particularly towards their defined sensitivity levels, is a good solution that provides a simple, easy-to-understand approach towards defining risk, I imagine there are other ways besides this to categorize how information should be approached. Defining risks based on high, moderate, and low sometimes understates how important a system is or is not regardless of the sensitivity of a system. What’s your opinion?
Hello Ikenna, I couldn’t agree more. While I do think there are more factors we should look into, ultimately, I think the three different categorizations are an effective way to relay the information to management in a way for them to understand. A big part of our field is communication and if we were to assign very difficult and unusual terms for categorization, it could very well confuse management. Moving forward though, I do think the three can be a little broad, so possibly, it may be beneficial for this to be revisited years down the line. I’m not exactly sure on what the new categorizations should be named, but I do think things like nuance should be taken into consideration to help it be understood that things might be in between one of the three categorizations.
This publication was packed with information on categorization, but I wanted to dive into the details as soon as possible so Table 7, which keeps appearing in a lot of these publications, stood out for me. More specifically, section 4.2.2.2 integrity factors. It shows how Table 7 uses FIPS 199 to show an impact criteria summarization. I feel that this is very important, especially on the military grade and makes me think about what else those personnel must abide by. The reason why is because you see, more recently in the news as of last year, classified documents are being leaked about our military. Furthermore, the Integrity factors section shows examples such as: initiate confusion or controversy through false attribution of a fraudulent or false policy; interfere with or manipulate law enforcement or legal process; achieve unauthorized access to government information or facilities. It then makes me think that FIPS 199 must be brought up in trial against personnel that leak these documents to show the danger, breach of information etc. levels. As I read further, I also found interesting according to the article,” Contract information that has a moderate confidentiality impact level during the life of a contract may have a low impact level when the contract is completed”. So, with that being said, this is the question I will bring to the question post.
Out of this reading, I found interesting that there are methods utilized to assign security impact levels for information types such as: identify information types, select provisional impact levels, review provisional impact levels & adjust/finalize information impact levels, and assign the system security category (Page 12).
NIST 800-60 emphasizes the need of system category process documentation. Documenting the studies, significant choices, approvals, and supporting arguments that went into the classification of information system security is crucial (Page 31). The business impact analysis, enterprise architecture, capital planning, investment control, disaster recovery planning, system design, information sharing, and system interconnection agreements may all make use of the system security categorization results.
The process you outlined is a solid way to ensure a thorough and thoughtful approach to classifying information system security its building a solid foundation for the entire security structure. What challenges do you see organizations facing in terms of ensuring that the documentation is not just a formality but actually reflects the intricacies and considerations involved in classifying information system security?
Chapter 3 of the Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information System guides readers for writing and creating a system security plan including steps that should be followed to maximize the effectiveness of the security plan. One of the more interesting points/steps of the plan is the system interconnection/information sharing step of the plan. The actual in-between of two or more systems need to be properly protected so that every system is not only protected as a whole, but from one another in the case one system is compromised. For every interconnection between systems in an organization, they should be appropriately documented including the name of systems, type of connection, authorizations, FIPS category, and more. It’s interesting that something like the interconnection between systems is sometimes forgotten in system planning and yet it is just as important to keep the connection secure.
Ignore this, I looked at the wrong document. The following is my response:
Volume One of the Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories helps create guidelines for facilitating better security of information and systems. In particular, the table created in section 3.2 is of key interest. The table outlines how low, moderate, and high are defined based on FIPS 199 standards with low having limited effect, moderate having some or serious effect, and high having severe or catastrophic effect on organizations. Although broad, the impact levels provide a baseline for IT auditors to understand how important an asset is to an organization.
The NIST Special Publication 800-60 “Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories” guides categorizing information and information systems based on the potential impact of levels. FIPS 199 defines three levels(low, Moderate, High) of potential impact on organizations or individuals in the event of a security breach. This categorization helps agencies choose proper security controls to ensure confidentiality, Integrity, and availability of systems and information
As I was reading through this guide I appreciated their systematic structured approach, the guide offers a four-step security categorization process. I noticed some similarities between the risk management framework and this guide. The initial step which is to Identify Information Types is a very crucial process in the risk management framework. Identifying the type of information and information systems and mapping them to their impact level helps the organization manage and prioritize security risks. The categorization process helps agencies make informed decisions, by guiding them in selecting and implementing suitable security controls to safeguard their assets.
NIST SP 800-60 is a valuable resource for organizations seeking to establish a structured approach to information security categorization, enabling them to effectively manage security risks and protect critical assets.
NIST SP 800-60 is about categorizing information and computer systems for better security. It’s crucial for choosing the right security measures to keep data confidential, intact, and available. The overall idea and my biggest takeaway is that proper categorization is essential for government agencies to manage security effectively throughout the development of systems, their certification, and in managing risks.
Well said Nicholas, NIST SP 800-60 was developed to ensure reliable system categorization of information systems based on impact levels identified by in FIPS 199. This will in turn help agencies implement appropriate controls. Incorrect categorization can create risk of an agency overprotecting their systems and wasting resources. or under protecting and exposing their assets to risk.
I concur with your perspective. Before proceeding with categorization, agencies should implement measures to prevent inaccurate categorization from occurring. Inaccurate classification may result in inadequately protected assets, as they could be subject to insufficient security controls.
Great perspective on NIST 800-60. The running theme for me is how detailed these documents are when it comes to providing guidance. At first, at least for me I questioned why many documents and guidelines on processes are there so that seem simple to execute. As I read more I understand that it is about not only accountability but also ensuring things are done correctly and within the law.
NIST 800-60 V1R1 buttresses the crucial role of security categorization in integrating security into government agencies’ business and IT management, fostering standardization across information systems. The process begins with identifying information supporting government lines of business based on the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). It involves evaluating the need for security in terms of confidentiality, integrity, and availability, establishing a strong linkage between missions, information, and information systems for cost-effective security. Agencies support this process by documenting mission-based information types, involving key stakeholders to ensure appropriate management oversight. The value of information security categorization lies in proactively implementing security controls based on potential impact, supporting missions in a cost-effective manner. Incorrect categorization can lead to resource wastage or put operations at risk. Conducting impact analyses as an agency-wide exercise enables economies of scale, enhancing overall understanding of the agency’s mission and business processes.
This document provides a guideline for developing risk management frameworks for information or information systems. It stresses the importance of early implementation in the SDLC as it’ll make the transition more efficient when addressing risks as they’ll be planned around rather than attempting workarounds later. This document also provides a guide for conducting risk assessments including our favorite revisited topic, impact assessment and security categorization. as well as other steps including identifying, assigning impact levels, monitoring/reviewing and reevaluating those impact levels based on their information type, and assigning each a security category to which they’ve provided a guideline to categorization based on the information present based on the CIA security objectives levels.
That being said my major takeaway for this reading was all complexity that goes in categorizing each system especially the excerpts regarding trade secrets and how they’re automatically considered moderate confidentiality impact level regardless of the actual information because of its importance to the organization/agency it was collected from.
This reading covers the direction for developing guidelines for the recommendation of types of information systems to be included in every category of possible security impact. This helps agencies with mapping impact levels for things like information and information systems. The intended usage of this is for information security professionals who would have oversight responsibilities and someone who works in management. Impact levels are incredibly important for companies as they help companies determine how much it would cost for them to implement controls to protect a certain area of their business. It also helps an organization save money because for them, it might not make sense to invest money in a low impact area. That being said, some organizations still might invest in low impact areas as to them, they prioritize the integrity of their information.
Hi Hashem,
I agree with your post regarding the importance of impact levels. Impact levels play a major role in organizations’ decisions. As you have said, an organization would rather invest money and time in a low impact than a high impact.
Information and information system categorization is essential when planning security. The reading provided guidelines on types of information and information systems to be used for potential security impacts. From the reading, I learned that categorization is important to identify the level of risk and also maintain the risks.
Assignment of Impact Levels and Security Categorization section helped me to the guidance that goes into assigning security impact levels and security categorizations. The figure of the four step security categorization process lays out the process but warns that you must familiarize yourself with FIPS 199. The picture of the SP800-60 process roadmap is also very informative. It names to process step, activities with the step, as well as stakeholder roles. It is so many connecting parts that it gets intimidating just thinking about having to put one of these together.
The guidelines in NIST 800-60 V1R1 are very useful in helping you categorize your information. However, they can be complicated and hard to understand. Even though the process might seem overwhelming, try to be flexible and use available resources. Remember that the ultimate goal is to keep your sensitive data secure.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has long been instrumental in formulating guidelines that govern the handling of digital information. One of its eminent guidelines is the NIST Special Publication 800-60 V1R1, a blueprint for mapping types of information and information systems to security categories. The document underscores the vitality of classified standing of information and systems in achieving maximum information security.
The NIST 800-60 V1R1 essentially structures a sturdy, robust framework, facilitating the allocation of information systems to high, moderate, or low impact security categories. This triage system is highly pivotal in tailoring adequate security controls, guiding an organization towards a standardized security posture. It is a significant resource in the development of System Security Plans (SSPs), Risk Assessments, and Contingency Plans.
Furthermore, NIST 800 60 V1R1 equips organizations to adhere to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), reaffirming their compliance with mandatory security regulations. Its holistic coverage of a diverse assortment of information types is particularly noteworthy, encompassing not just traditional textual information but also auditory and visual content.
In conclusion, the NIST 800 60 V1R1 guide is a fine epitome of a comprehensive and versatile security categorization tool. Its in-depth mapping capacity and meticulous consideration of varied information systems fortify its standing as a sacrosanct document in the realm of cybersecurity frameworks.
Micheal, I totally align with your post that NIST 800 60 V1R1 not only equips organizations to comply with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), but its robust coverage supports diverse information types, including visual and auditory content. Also you did well bringing into picture that this guide embodies a comprehensive security framework with an exceptional mapping capacity.
This segment of the NIST guidelines covers overall security categorization and classification of information systems. As NIST lays out, these organizational charts and documentations are important because they provide a clear overall view of how and what to prioritize, what risks apply, and how these systems are managed. What struck me about this document is how comprehensive and thorough this documentation is. Being able to clearly lay out and identify an organization’s systems, identify what risks they face, define their criticality, and abstract how they would impact an organization if compromised is vital to creating a comprehensive security plan that makes sure all avenues of vulnerability are covered and accounted for by information systems admins. Having a clear framework and template to start with in your classification streamlines the process from top to bottom and allows for a clear delegation of what issues and risks to focus on overall
Hi Andrew,
I agree that having a clear framework and template significantly helps with designating the severe issues and risks within an organization. Even outside of this, having a well-written security plan helps auditors in understanding the responses to some risks, including what should be mitigated, accepted, removed, etc. Through thorough security planning comes a more prepared organization.
Absolutely. It’s interesting to see how, though these documents are certainly designed to fit a specific role, their overall concepts extend beyond the material itself to other subjects. These procedures, though they may change, provide an interesting perspective on how to expand and create a thorough plan for security response and calculate risks to systems as a whole
The NIST 800-60 V1R1 guide serves as an integral resource in facilitating the mapping of various types of information and information systems to their corresponding security categories. Its utilization is paramount in enhancing the fortification of data and safeguarding diverse information systems. Precisely, this resourceful guide is relied upon due to its comprehensive approach in categorizing information based on sensitivity levels; High, Moderate, Low and potential impact of a breach. Consequently, this enables strategic implementation of appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive data and heighten the overall system security. In a world characterized by data breaches and escalating cybersecurity threats, adhering to NIST guidelines is fundamental to reinforcing data integrity. Therefore, the importance of employing the NIST 800-60 V1R1 guide cannot be understated, given its functionally indispensable role in aligning types of information to relevant security categories.
Hi Ikenna,
While I do agree that NIST’s guidelines towards risk, particularly towards their defined sensitivity levels, is a good solution that provides a simple, easy-to-understand approach towards defining risk, I imagine there are other ways besides this to categorize how information should be approached. Defining risks based on high, moderate, and low sometimes understates how important a system is or is not regardless of the sensitivity of a system. What’s your opinion?
Hello Ikenna, I couldn’t agree more. While I do think there are more factors we should look into, ultimately, I think the three different categorizations are an effective way to relay the information to management in a way for them to understand. A big part of our field is communication and if we were to assign very difficult and unusual terms for categorization, it could very well confuse management. Moving forward though, I do think the three can be a little broad, so possibly, it may be beneficial for this to be revisited years down the line. I’m not exactly sure on what the new categorizations should be named, but I do think things like nuance should be taken into consideration to help it be understood that things might be in between one of the three categorizations.
This publication was packed with information on categorization, but I wanted to dive into the details as soon as possible so Table 7, which keeps appearing in a lot of these publications, stood out for me. More specifically, section 4.2.2.2 integrity factors. It shows how Table 7 uses FIPS 199 to show an impact criteria summarization. I feel that this is very important, especially on the military grade and makes me think about what else those personnel must abide by. The reason why is because you see, more recently in the news as of last year, classified documents are being leaked about our military. Furthermore, the Integrity factors section shows examples such as: initiate confusion or controversy through false attribution of a fraudulent or false policy; interfere with or manipulate law enforcement or legal process; achieve unauthorized access to government information or facilities. It then makes me think that FIPS 199 must be brought up in trial against personnel that leak these documents to show the danger, breach of information etc. levels. As I read further, I also found interesting according to the article,” Contract information that has a moderate confidentiality impact level during the life of a contract may have a low impact level when the contract is completed”. So, with that being said, this is the question I will bring to the question post.
Out of this reading, I found interesting that there are methods utilized to assign security impact levels for information types such as: identify information types, select provisional impact levels, review provisional impact levels & adjust/finalize information impact levels, and assign the system security category (Page 12).
NIST 800-60 emphasizes the need of system category process documentation. Documenting the studies, significant choices, approvals, and supporting arguments that went into the classification of information system security is crucial (Page 31). The business impact analysis, enterprise architecture, capital planning, investment control, disaster recovery planning, system design, information sharing, and system interconnection agreements may all make use of the system security categorization results.
The process you outlined is a solid way to ensure a thorough and thoughtful approach to classifying information system security its building a solid foundation for the entire security structure. What challenges do you see organizations facing in terms of ensuring that the documentation is not just a formality but actually reflects the intricacies and considerations involved in classifying information system security?
Chapter 3 of the Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information System guides readers for writing and creating a system security plan including steps that should be followed to maximize the effectiveness of the security plan. One of the more interesting points/steps of the plan is the system interconnection/information sharing step of the plan. The actual in-between of two or more systems need to be properly protected so that every system is not only protected as a whole, but from one another in the case one system is compromised. For every interconnection between systems in an organization, they should be appropriately documented including the name of systems, type of connection, authorizations, FIPS category, and more. It’s interesting that something like the interconnection between systems is sometimes forgotten in system planning and yet it is just as important to keep the connection secure.
Ignore this, I looked at the wrong document. The following is my response:
Volume One of the Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories helps create guidelines for facilitating better security of information and systems. In particular, the table created in section 3.2 is of key interest. The table outlines how low, moderate, and high are defined based on FIPS 199 standards with low having limited effect, moderate having some or serious effect, and high having severe or catastrophic effect on organizations. Although broad, the impact levels provide a baseline for IT auditors to understand how important an asset is to an organization.
The NIST Special Publication 800-60 “Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories” guides categorizing information and information systems based on the potential impact of levels. FIPS 199 defines three levels(low, Moderate, High) of potential impact on organizations or individuals in the event of a security breach. This categorization helps agencies choose proper security controls to ensure confidentiality, Integrity, and availability of systems and information
As I was reading through this guide I appreciated their systematic structured approach, the guide offers a four-step security categorization process. I noticed some similarities between the risk management framework and this guide. The initial step which is to Identify Information Types is a very crucial process in the risk management framework. Identifying the type of information and information systems and mapping them to their impact level helps the organization manage and prioritize security risks. The categorization process helps agencies make informed decisions, by guiding them in selecting and implementing suitable security controls to safeguard their assets.
NIST SP 800-60 is a valuable resource for organizations seeking to establish a structured approach to information security categorization, enabling them to effectively manage security risks and protect critical assets.
NIST SP 800-60 is about categorizing information and computer systems for better security. It’s crucial for choosing the right security measures to keep data confidential, intact, and available. The overall idea and my biggest takeaway is that proper categorization is essential for government agencies to manage security effectively throughout the development of systems, their certification, and in managing risks.
Well said Nicholas, NIST SP 800-60 was developed to ensure reliable system categorization of information systems based on impact levels identified by in FIPS 199. This will in turn help agencies implement appropriate controls. Incorrect categorization can create risk of an agency overprotecting their systems and wasting resources. or under protecting and exposing their assets to risk.
I concur with your perspective. Before proceeding with categorization, agencies should implement measures to prevent inaccurate categorization from occurring. Inaccurate classification may result in inadequately protected assets, as they could be subject to insufficient security controls.
Great perspective on NIST 800-60. The running theme for me is how detailed these documents are when it comes to providing guidance. At first, at least for me I questioned why many documents and guidelines on processes are there so that seem simple to execute. As I read more I understand that it is about not only accountability but also ensuring things are done correctly and within the law.
NIST 800-60 V1R1 buttresses the crucial role of security categorization in integrating security into government agencies’ business and IT management, fostering standardization across information systems. The process begins with identifying information supporting government lines of business based on the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). It involves evaluating the need for security in terms of confidentiality, integrity, and availability, establishing a strong linkage between missions, information, and information systems for cost-effective security. Agencies support this process by documenting mission-based information types, involving key stakeholders to ensure appropriate management oversight. The value of information security categorization lies in proactively implementing security controls based on potential impact, supporting missions in a cost-effective manner. Incorrect categorization can lead to resource wastage or put operations at risk. Conducting impact analyses as an agency-wide exercise enables economies of scale, enhancing overall understanding of the agency’s mission and business processes.
This document provides a guideline for developing risk management frameworks for information or information systems. It stresses the importance of early implementation in the SDLC as it’ll make the transition more efficient when addressing risks as they’ll be planned around rather than attempting workarounds later. This document also provides a guide for conducting risk assessments including our favorite revisited topic, impact assessment and security categorization. as well as other steps including identifying, assigning impact levels, monitoring/reviewing and reevaluating those impact levels based on their information type, and assigning each a security category to which they’ve provided a guideline to categorization based on the information present based on the CIA security objectives levels.
That being said my major takeaway for this reading was all complexity that goes in categorizing each system especially the excerpts regarding trade secrets and how they’re automatically considered moderate confidentiality impact level regardless of the actual information because of its importance to the organization/agency it was collected from.
This reading covers the direction for developing guidelines for the recommendation of types of information systems to be included in every category of possible security impact. This helps agencies with mapping impact levels for things like information and information systems. The intended usage of this is for information security professionals who would have oversight responsibilities and someone who works in management. Impact levels are incredibly important for companies as they help companies determine how much it would cost for them to implement controls to protect a certain area of their business. It also helps an organization save money because for them, it might not make sense to invest money in a low impact area. That being said, some organizations still might invest in low impact areas as to them, they prioritize the integrity of their information.
Hi Hashem,
I agree with your post regarding the importance of impact levels. Impact levels play a major role in organizations’ decisions. As you have said, an organization would rather invest money and time in a low impact than a high impact.
Information and information system categorization is essential when planning security. The reading provided guidelines on types of information and information systems to be used for potential security impacts. From the reading, I learned that categorization is important to identify the level of risk and also maintain the risks.