Five of my
last six posts have dealt with plan-based requirements, such as CIP-013 R1,
CIP-014 R5, CIP-010 R4, and (parts of) CIP-003 R2. These requirements have
become very popular among the four NERC CIP drafting teams that have done their
work after the CIP version 5 standards were developed, approved and implemented.
In fact, almost all of the requirements, and both of the new standards, that
have been developed since CIP v5 have been plan-based. And I see no sign that
this process will let up anytime soon. The new standard currently being
developed, CIP-012, is definitely plan-based as well.
The last
four of those five posts have all addressed the question of auditability -
namely, how can a plan-based requirement be audited? In the last two posts, I
have made the point that, in my opinion, for a plan-based requirement to be
auditable it needs to include a list of threats that must be addressed[i]. For
example, in this
post I pointed out that CIP-014 R5 requires that the plan specifically address
the threats and vulnerabilities identified in the threat and vulnerability
analysis required by R4. And in this
post I discussed CIP-010 R4, which does a very good job of outlining the
threats to be addressed, and is the best example I’ve seen so far of an
auditable plan-based requirement.
And then
there’s CIP-013 (especially CIP-013 R1). In the last three posts in this
series, I’ve stated that it is only auditable in a limited sense. R1.1 lists
three threat types that need to be addressed in the plan: threats from
procuring vendor equipment and software, installing vendor equipment and
software, and transitions between vendors. The only list of threats is in R1.2,
and those are only a subset of the threats that would apply to just one of the
three threat types (they’re all threats from procurement). Given that the great
majority of the threats that would appear in a comprehensive list are not
shown, I rate CIP-013 R1 as mostly un-auditable.
However, in
each of the last three posts in this series, I’ve gone on to raise another
question: Does it matter that CIP-013 R1 (and by implication R2) is
un-auditable? More specifically, in what ways does it matter and not matter?
Let’s step
back and ask a larger question: What is the purpose of auditing in the NERC
standards environment, anyway? For the prescriptive requirements (which I will
soon be calling “means-based” requirements, since that is the term that people
who write about these things use) – including most of the 693 (O&P)
requirements and many of the CIP requirements - the answer is quite simple: to
determine whether the entity did or didn’t do what they were supposed to do or
not do.
But why do
we need to audit the prescriptive standards in the first place? Because they’re
mandatory. And why are they mandatory? Because following them is deemed
important for the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System. And this is
the fundamental reason why prescriptive standards are audited.
But how
about the plan-based requirements (which I will soon be calling
“management-based”)? Given that the ultimate goal is the protection of the BES,
what is the best way to accomplish that goal? We shouldn’t engage in a false
analogy here and just say “Well, if auditing is the way that the BES is
protected with respect to prescriptive requirements, then it’s obviously the
way to protect the BES with respect to plan-based requirements.” Is this really
the case? Let’s look at the nature of prescriptive and plan-based requirements.
First, why
are many NERC requirements prescriptive? Let’s use the example of FAC-003, the
infamous tree-trimming standard whose violation was one cause of the 2003
Northeast blackout. Table 2 of this standard shows minimum distances that must
be maintained between a high-voltage transmission line and any tree directly
under it. It is prescriptive, because all it takes is one overgrown tree to
trip such a line – and having a few such lines tripped in one day, coupled with
generation outages, can lead to a cascading outage (or at least it did in
2003). Since any one tree can cause a line trip, there is really no choice in
the matter: the requirement has to be prescriptive, and it must apply to every
tree in scope. Here, the audit’s role is to confirm that the utility is really
complying with the requirement and trimming all of the trees that they need to.[ii]
Now, why are
some NERC CIP requirements plan-based? Because a plan-based requirement is
designed to address an objective that isn’t measurable.[iii] In the
CIP world, the objective of a requirement is always the mitigation of the risk
to the BES posed by one or more cyber or physical threats. As with prescriptive
requirements, the protection of the BES is still the primary goal here. But
what’s the best way to protect the BES, when a requirement is plan-based?
I don’t know
about you, but I think the best way to protect the BES, in the case of a
plan-based requirement, is for the NERC entity to have a good plan and to
implement it well. Note that this isn’t a binary choice, as in the case of prescriptive
requirements. This isn’t a question of verifying whether the entity took
particular actions or not. Rather, it’s a case of whether the plan they
developed, and their implementation of it, advanced the objective of the plan
(in the case of CIP-013, the objective is supply chain security. In CIP-014, it’s
physical security of key substations; etc).
But if this
is true, what good does it do to simply audit after the fact? For example,
suppose an entity has no idea how to write a supply chain security plan, and
puts together a document that includes a lot of miscellaneous directives that
don’t help BES supply chain security at all. Or suppose they put together a
good plan, but do a terrible job of implementing it, so that – again – supply chain
security isn’t improved. How does it help the BES for auditors to simply come
in after the fact, stroke their chins, and say “Yup, this was a terrible plan,
all right” or “These guys wrote a great plan, but they put an idiot in charge
of implementing it, so they might as well not have bothered with the whole
exercise”?
The answer
to this question is it doesn’t help the BES at all for the auditors to
determine after the fact whether the plan is good and whether it has been well
implemented. If the entity is struggling with their plan, they should be able
to get help at the time they’re struggling, not years later when they’re told
their plan is no good. The same with implementation: As they start implementing
the plan, someone needs to check on them to determine whether they’re on the track
to success or not. If they aren’t, they need to receive some advice on how they
can get on track.
Two
questions come up here. First, if the entity is struggling with their plan or
with implementation, why can’t they turn to a consulting firm? The answer to
that is they certainly should be getting help from consultants if they need it,
but in the NERC world the “consultants” who really matter are the auditors. You
can find a good example of that in my recent post
on CIP-014, where I mentioned a NERC entity that had received a PNC (potential
non-compliance) notice because they had taken the requirements in that standard
literally when they say that the entity is to protect against attacks on the
substation itself, not on any of the individual Facilities (buses,
transformers, etc) in the substation. The auditors thought they should be
protecting the Facilities as well (especially the transformers).
As I also
pointed out in that post, I don’t blame the auditors for saying the entity’s
plan should have included protection for the transformers as well as for the
whole substation, although I think they should just have identified this as an
Area of Concern (AoC), as another set of auditors had done with another entity
in the same region in a similar situation. But regarding my point on consulting
firms, this entity had worked closely with a very respected NERC CIP compliance
firm to do the threat and vulnerability assessment and develop the plan, yet
the plan was still wrong as far as the auditors were concerned. It’s a sad fact
but true: as far as CIP compliance is concerned (not just CIP-013), the only
correct interpretation of the requirement is the one your auditor follows.
This utility
was actually quite lucky that they got audited when they did – shortly after
they had developed their Physical Security Plan for CIP-014 but before they had
implemented it. Had their audit date fallen a couple of years later, they would
have not only developed the plan but implemented it. For them to hear at that
time that the plan was all wrong would have been much more serious, since it
would mean they should have spent their implementation money differently than
they actually did spend it, over the past couple of years.
Now to the
second question: Given that the auditors (or at least the region) are the ones
who really need to judge the plan and its implementation, what is to keep them
from giving the plan an informal review after it’s developed, and providing
helpful advice on how it could be improved? And why couldn’t the auditors, when
the entity has started their implementation of the plan and has some questions
about whether they’re doing it right, simply take a look at how the
implementation is going so far and point out any problems they see?
You may have
guessed the answer: the principle of auditor independence. According to
auditing standards and especially to the Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS), which NERC auditors are all trained on, the auditor can
never provide compliance advice to an entity they will audit, prior to the
audit itself.
I agree that
auditor independence makes sense in the case of prescriptive requirements,
where there really is a binary answer to compliance questions. But what about
in the case of plan-based requirements, where the entity – as we have just seen
– could go way off course and spend a lot of money implementing a plan that isn’t
what the auditors want to see? I have a great example of that. It’s from this
post – also about CIP-014 – where I described a different entity that had asked
their region to give them advice on a big physical security investment (about
$80 million, in fact) they were thinking of making at their critical
substations; they wanted to know whether that investment would increase the
likelihood that their Physical Security Plan would be found to be adequate when
they were audited. Given the amount of money involved and the fact that there
were a lot of alternative uses for it, management didn’t want to make this
investment without some clear signal that it would help, and especially not
hurt, their CIP-014 compliance posture.
I don’t
think it will surprise you when I say that the answer they received was no,
that the auditors couldn’t provide an answer to this question because it would
violate – ta da! – auditor independence. Again, I can’t blame the auditors.
Given that they are effectively
government auditors and they have to follow GAGAS, how could they give any
different answer?
But instead
of shrugging our shoulders, why don’t we go back to the question I asked above:
Why is this standard mandatory? The answer: Like with the other CIP standards,
the protections it affords are deemed to be very important to the BES. Then let’s
ask another question: Given that the region’s refusal to answer the entity’s
question may well result in an $80 million physical security investment in
critical substations not being made, and given that it’s indubitable that this
investment would have enhanced the physical security of the BES (otherwise, why
would a large, sophisticated utility have even considered it in the first
place?), how does the possible cancellation of this project make the BES more
secure?
The answer
to this last question is simple: It doesn’t. The potential cancellation of this
project (and I have no knowledge whether it might be cancelled or not) will
definitely result in a less-secure grid than would its implementation. So if our
ultimate concern is really the security of the BES (which it is), not guarding
the principle of auditor independence, what can we do about this?
In my
opinion, this is how plan-based standards should be managed (I don’t want to
use the word “audited”) by NERC and the regions:
1. Any
requirement to develop a plan will need to include a list of threats to be
addressed in the plan, as well as some mechanism for updating that list on a
regular basis (hopefully by an industry body, not just by the entity itself).
The requirement will also need to specify that the plan must include a timeline
for implementation.
2. For
every requirement to develop a plan, there must be another requirement to
implement it. Part of that requirement will specify that any changes in timeline
or objectives of the plan will be documented and explained, so that when the
region reviews the implementation they will always be looking at the current
plan.
3. The
entity develops their plan, either on their own or using a third party like a
consulting firm.
4. The
entity submits the plan to their region (not necessarily to the auditors, of
course). The region reviews it and points out any deficiencies they see.
5. The
entity revises their plan and re-submits it. If it’s now good to go, the region
approves it. If it’s not, the region sends it back a second time, with a new
set of pointers (and perhaps a stern admonition if they think the entity hasn’t
been paying close enough attention to what they said).
6. If
needed, there’s another cycle, but ultimately the plan will be approved. The
entity then starts the implementation process, which will follow the timeline
shown in the plan.
7. At
any point during implementation, and with or without a request from the entity,
the region can step in and review how the implementation is going. They’ll
compare the entity’s progress to the timeline, and will require explanations of
any deviations from that timeline (in fact, any deviation should already have
been documented). Of course, if they think the project is off course in any
way, they’ll provide advice on how to fix that.
8. If
at any point in this process the entity seems to be acting in bad faith, or
simply ignores advice the region gives them, then – and only then – can they be
issued a PNC.
Don’t you
think the BES would be more secure if this were how the region operated, rather
than auditing CIP-014 like it’s FAC-003, so that a judgment needs to be made on
whether the entity has complied with each requirement and requirement part – but
at the price of the region not being able to provide any guidance at all before
the actual audit? I do, too. This is why I’m saying that, for plan-based
requirements, audits really don’t matter very much. What matters is the
guidance the regions can give to the entities. If we had to give up auditing of
these requirements altogether and essentially make them voluntary standards,
the BES would be more secure, not less.
How does
this problem get fixed? In the long term, it will be a big deal. For one thing,
the requirements themselves will need to be rewritten as I described in the
first two bullet points. For another, NERC’s CMEP (Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Plan) and perhaps the Rules of Procedure will also have to be
modified. Once that is done, the “management” steps I just described will allow
plan-based requirements to be “audited”, but in a different sense than audits
of prescriptive requirements.
However,
there is also a shorter-term fix, which involves doing all of the above steps
with different people than the actual auditors and only issuing AoC’s, not PNC’s.
This would also be a big change, but it wouldn’t require rewriting the
standards, CMEP or the RoP. And in fact, I think it is effectively how
plan-based requirements will be “audited”, until the longer-term fixes can be
implemented. I’ll describe this in an upcoming post, but there are a few that I
want to write before I go back to this topic. So stay tuned.
Have a good
holiday!
The views and opinions expressed here are my own, and do
not reflect those of any organization I work with. If you would like to comment
on what you have read here, I would love to hear from you. Please email me at tom@tomalrich.com.
[i]
I now realize that this list doesn’t have to be provided in the requirement
itself. Rather, it can be developed through a local threat and vulnerability
assessment. This would only be appropriate in a standard like CIP-014, where
the physical security threats to one substation will inevitably be
substantially different from threats to another substation, due to variability
in terrain, population, etc. Most cyber threats aren’t specific to one
facility,
one NERC entity,
or even one region of the country, which is why I think the threats to be
addressed in the plan for requirements like CIP-013-1 should normally be
included in the requirement itself. And as I’ve also pointed out, there should
be a provision for updating this list regularly, since new threats come up all
the time. So far, only CIP-013 has a provision for updating threats, and it
doesn’t do this the way that I would.
[ii]
Here’s a fun exercise for the reader. Compare the argument I just made for a
prescriptive tree-trimming requirement to CIP-007 R2 patch management, the most
prescriptive CIP requirement. Does the same argument apply there? If not, how
is the situation different? If you want to email me your papers, I’ll send back
your grade. But please, no looking at your neighbor’s paper! For my answer,
you’ll have to wait for the book I’m working on now, but it’s likely I’ll touch
on this topic in the blog sometime before then. I have probably discussed it at
least a few times previously, but don’t ask me to look through all those old
musty posts to try to find where I said that! One person can only take so much
punishment…
[iii]
By giving this quick-and-dirty definition, I’m going beyond what I said about
plan-based requirements in the first
post in this series. I thought up until a few days ago that plan-based
requirements were just a subset of objectives-based ones. But I’ve now learned
that true objectives-based requirements need to have a measurable objective.
The plan-based requirements in CIP aim for non-measurable objectives like
supply chain security, physical security, etc. As I already said, plan-based
requirements are really one type of “management-based” requirements. In management-based
requirements (found in many compliance regimes, not just NERC or NERC CIP), the
entity needs to put together a good program (i.e. plan) to pursue the
objective, but with the understanding that there is no such thing as obtaining
an objective like supply chain security. If you thought it was actually
possible to attain that objective, then I’m sorry to have to disabuse you of
that notion. By the way, there’s no Santa Claus, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment