When a NERC
Standards Drafting Team drafts a new (or revised) requirement and they utilize
an important term that has not been defined previously in the NERC Glossary, they need to consider how to let NERC entities know what they meant when they used that term. They have three good options and one not-so-good one, in my opinion. The three
good options are:
- If the term is clearly well-understood and the common
dictionary definition will suffice, they don’t have to do anything. For
example, the term “patch” is used many times in the CIP standards, but
this term is well enough understood in the IT community that there is no
need to define it further.
- If the term is only used in one requirement, it can be
defined in the requirement itself. A good illustration of this is the
late, unlamented death of the defined term “Low impact External Routable
Connectivity”, affectionately known as LERC. The CIP Modifications SDT
took up LERC last year because FERC had ordered that the definition –
which had been developed by the CIP v6 SDT and had been approved and
included in the Glossary – be revised to clarify the meaning of the term “direct”.
Since LERC was only used in one requirement part, the team decided to
revise that single part to include the new “definition” of LERC (as well as make other changes to the requirement part itself). This
eliminated the need to separately draft a revised definition and get it approved
(by the NERC ballot body, the NERC Board of Trustees, and FERC); the
approval of the new definition would simply be part of the approval of the
requirement part itself (in retrospect, the v6 SDT should have used the
same reasoning).
- If a term is used in multiple requirements, it should be defined
and voted on as a new definition to include in the Glossary. While doing
this requires more work on the part of the SDT, it is the only course that
will provide certainty[i].
That is, the NERC entities will understand what the term means, and the
auditors will agree with them on it. This means that it will be hard for
the entity to argue with any audit finding that depends on that term (of
course, this assumes that the finding isn’t also based on another ambiguous
term or requirement – which probably happens a lot, at least in the case
of CIP).
But there is
a not-so-good option as well: Provide some non-binding guidance on how the term
should be interpreted (although exactly how that should be done is a big issue
now, which I will discuss in another post soon). Using this option, the drafting team in effect says “Well,
here’s what we think the term means, and we hope that everyone – entities and
auditors – joins their hands together and sings Kumbaya while agreeing they’ll
follow it. But there’s nothing to keep an auditor from coming up with their own
interpretation and finding you in potential non-compliance, even if you have
followed this definition. We sure hope this doesn’t happen to you, and we wish
you good luck. Have a nice day!”
And here is
something that should never be an option for the SDT: defining a term in
guidance while implying that it has some sort of status above pure guidance - i.e. that the auditors will be in some way obligated to follow it, or at least consider it more seriously than alternative definitions. If
this is done, then NERC entities – who might not know any better – may feel
inclined to vote for a new or revised standard(s) based on their belief that
there is no ambiguity about a key term used in the standard(s). They might be
in for a rude surprise years down the road when an auditor tells them they
haven’t been using what their Region considers the correct definition. When
they protest that they were just following the guidance provided by the SDT,
they’ll hear (hopefully not for the first time) that guidance isn’t binding on
auditors – they just audit to the “strict wording of the requirement”.
Now to my
story. As you may have heard, the second draft of the new NERC Supply Chain
Risk Management standard CIP-013 was approved two weeks ago by the NERC ballot
body, although by NERC’s rules the standard will still be revised to address the
new comments and submitted for another ballot. Probably the biggest change
between the first and second drafts of the standard is that the second draft
included not just a revised CIP-013, but changes to two existing standards,
CIP-005 and CIP-010. These standards also were approved two weeks ago, but will
also be revised and submitted for a new ballot with CIP-013.
The drafting
team decided to change the two other standards because a number of entities had
commented on the first draft of CIP-013 that there were two requirements in
that draft that should actually be part of existing requirements – in this case
CIP-005 R2 and CIP-010 R1. Now I’m going to focus on the changes in CIP-005 R2,
and provide a little history lesson to start out (as I love to do, in case you haven’t noticed).
The Supply
Chain standard came about because FERC ordered it in Order 829
in July 2016. Paragraph 51 (page 35) of that order said “The new or modified
Reliability Standard must address responsible entities’ logging and controlling
all third-party (i.e., vendor) initiated remote access sessions. This objective
covers both user-initiated and machine-to-machine vendor remote access.” In the
first draft of CIP-013, the drafting team included this requirement (numbered
R4) in CIP-013 itself. But a number of commenters pointed out that, since
CIP-005 R2 already dealt with remote access to BES Cyber Systems, CIP-013 R4 should
be incorporated in that requirement.
To be
honest, I was a little surprised that entities would have requested this, since
I could see this leading to problems. This is because FERC went beyond what was
already in CIP-005 R2 in two ways:
- R2 currently just requires controls on remote access. Once the remote session has
been initiated using the required controls (an Intermediate System and
encryption of the remote link), there is no further action required by the
entity. By contrast, FERC wants the entity to address both real-time logging
(although that has been generalized into monitoring by the SDT) and
actually controlling all third-party remote access.
- FERC wants machine-to-machine remote access covered as
well as interactive remote access. Currently, machine-to-machine access is
specifically excluded by the definition of Interactive Remote Access
(which is of course what CIP-005 R2 is limited to). But FERC was concerned that
this left a big hole, since a machine on a vendor network could have been
compromised by a third party and could wreak havoc in an ESP under the
control of that third party (in fact, both the 2015 and 2016 Ukraine
attacks could be considered machine-to-machine access, although this came
through the utility’s own network, not a vendor’s).
Even though
FERC just ordered that these controls apply to “vendor” access, I was concerned
that, by incorporating them into CIP-005 R2, there would be no way to keep them
from bleeding into all remote access,
including by the NERC entity’s own employees and computers. I figured that the
only way to keep this from happening was to have a definition of “vendor”
(which I was surprised hadn’t been included with the first draft) that
specified exactly what this applied to. Good fences make good neighbors, to
quote Robert Frost.
I admit that
I didn’t pay too much attention to development of the second draft of CIP-013
until Corey Sellers, the Chairman of the SDT, spoke at the RF CIP Workshop in
April, which I attended.
When he brought up the fact that the remote access requirement had been moved
into CIP-005 R2, I asked him whether the team had in fact developed a
definition of Vendor. I don’t remember his exact words, but he said that:
- Due to time constraints (the team has all along been very
aware that they have to get the new standard – and the two revised standards
– approved by NERC and on FERC’s desk by September. Of course, it’s still
an open question whether anyone will be behind that desk when it arrives,
since FERC hasn’t had enough Commissioners to make a quorum since
February), the team had decided not to draft a formal Definition.
- Instead, they had drafted an informal definition and
inserted it in the Rationale section of the three standards in question
(CIP-013, CIP-005 and CIP-010). The Rationale is found in blue boxes
included among the requirements in each of the standards (i.e. in the
revised drafts that were just approved last week).
- It seemed to me that Corey implied in his answer to my
question that, by being included in the Rationale and voted on along with
the requirements themselves, the Vendor definition would have a status
above that of mere guidance (and if he didn’t say that, he certainly didn’t
say that the definition would not have any status above something that –
say – I might write in my blog). Therefore, this was a good alternative to
not drafting a formal definition.
I was
satisfied with this answer at that time, up until the NERC CIPC meeting three
weeks ago in San Diego. At that meeting, Howard Gugel of NERC had the
unenviable responsibility of describing to the meeting how NERC’s revised
guidance policy works (I will have a lot more to say on that subject in another
post coming soon); this policy had been approved by the NERC Standards Committee
the previous day, but was (and still is) still subject to Board approval.
In Howard’s
talk (actually his second. On the first day of the meeting he left more
questions than answers, and it was suggested he return on the second day and
try again. This time he did a much better job of explaining the policy, to the
extent it can be explained at all), he stated very clearly that the Rationale
included with a standard was strictly to explain why the requirements had been
developed in the first place, not to provide any sort of guidance on
compliance. Therefore, the Rationale would not have any particular importance
in audits (these weren’t his exact words, but I thought his meaning was clear).
At that point,
I asked Howard why the definition of Vendor is included in the Rationale for the
new and revised CIP-013, CIP-005 and CIP-010. After all, the word Vendor is
crucial in all three standards, and it can certainly be said that how the
entity understands that term will have a lot of importance for how they will
comply. Howard didn’t have an answer for that question, except to say that it should
be included in the comments on the second draft (I believe the comment period
was still open the day he said that, although it closed the next day).
So it seems
that Corey Sellers was mistaken when he implied in April that including the
definition in the Rationale gave it a status somewhat like that of a real NERC
Definition. But this is completely understandable – the Standards Committee
didn’t even make that decision until two months later! I don’t blame Corey
for this at all, although I do regret that the SDT didn’t take the time to do
things right and draft a real Definition, even though that would have been
another item that needed to be balloted and approved.
You may
think this is an academic exercise since everyone knows what a vendor is. I
thought so, too, until one of the SDT meetings I attended had about a half-day
discussion just on what vendor means (and there was no resolution, perhaps
leading to the decision not to submit a definition for approval). The sticking
point was how to write the definition so that ISOs, RTOs, etc. would be
excluded from being vendors. They certainly provide things like software and
data to NERC entities, and the fact that they’re not specifically paid to do
those things isn’t in itself a clear distinction from other vendors, since
those other vendors often provide software and data without explicit payment
for them.
So the
bottom line is that there is no official definition of the word vendor, which
appears in the new drafts of CIP-013, CIP-005 and CIP-010. Assuming the latest draft I've seen (from the SDT's meeting in Charleston, SC last week) is what gets finally approved, you should have a conversation with your Region about what "vendor" means in these three standards, long before you’re audited on them (and my guess is it will be 3-5 years before there are any
audits of the Supply Chain requirements).
The danger
here is that an entity will assume that the definition of Vendor in the
Rationale is in some way official, since it was in the standard when it was
approved by the NERC ballot body. This definition makes it clear that ISOs and
RTOs aren’t vendors. But if an auditor five years from now happens to think
differently, the entity may be in for a big surprise.
I really don’t
think it's too likely that an auditor will be convinced that your ISO is actually a vendor, but it is certainly possible; and if it happens, you will have no real recourse beyond appealing and hoping that the people hearing your appeal will agree that you were justified (although perhaps naive) in thinking that the definition of Vendor in the Rationale had some special importance. And there are
other pieces of guidance – specifically the Guidance and Technical Basis
included with all the CIP standards since v5 – that most entities have also
considered as close to being as “official” as the requirements themselves, but which
in fact are also no more binding on the auditors (or the entities) than
something I write in this blog. I will have a post on this issue soon.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own and don’t
necessarily represent the views or opinions of Deloitte.
[i]
Assuming the definition is well drafted; if it isn’t, then there still is no
certainty. For example, the definition of Cyber Asset developed by the team
that drafted CIP v5 used the word Programmable, which wasn’t defined. The
result was that there still is no certainty (and probably never
will be) about what is or isn’t a Cyber Asset. And since this is without
exaggeration the fundamental definition in all of CIP, this lack of certainty has
carried into almost all of the CIP standards (although there have been many
other sources of uncertainty as well).
No comments:
Post a Comment