Risk Assessment Famework

Risk Framework -- Case Study Introduction The world is a dangerous place, always has been and looks to continue to be that way into the foreseeable future. History shows us that our world has always posited a large element of risk to any attempted enterprise, usually, the more successful the enterprise is, the greater the potential for misadventure to befall it. With this cheery thought in mind, the Information Assurance Team is proposing to counter this risk with a Framework composed of risk identification, security controls and mitigation procedures, all developed based on RLK’s security policy. We are presenting this to the senior management team in the hope of gaining the full support necessary for the successful implementation of and ongoing maintenance of the Risk Management Framework that we are proposing. We may not be able to eliminate comletely all risk to the company, but senior management support is essential to bringing it to a comfortable and manageable level. A Risk Management Policy has been created to: Protect RLK Enterprises from those risks of significant likelihood and consequence in the pursuit of the company’s stated strategic goals and objectives

Provide a consistent risk management framework in which the risks concerning business processes and functions of the company will be identified, considered and addressed in key approval, review and control processes

Provide assistance to and improve the quality of decision making throughout the company

Meet legal or statutory requirements

Encourage pro-active rather than re-active management

Assist in safeguarding the company's assets -- people, data, property and reputationRisk Management Policy RLK Enterprises Security Team is developing a risk management framework for key controls and approval processes of all major business processes and functions of the company. The aim of risk management is not to eliminate risk totally, but rather to provide the structural means to identify, prioritize, and manage the risks involved in all RLK Enterprises activities. It requires a balance between the cost of managing and treating risks, and the anticipated benefits that will be derived. Risk management is an essential element in the framework of good corporate governance and is an integral part of good management practice. The intent is to embed risk management in a very practical way into business processes and functions via key approval processes, review processes and controls-not to impose risk management as an extra requirement. Risk Assessment Framework Risk Assessment Framework introduces a structured, flexible, extensible, and repeatable process for managing organizational risk and achieving risk-based protection related to the operation and use of information. RLK Enterprises is an electronic medical records storage company and is subject to HIPPA Security Rule. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has created structure, guidelines and procedures that are required to be followed by Federal Agencies when dealing with electronic health information. They have made these available to commercial enterprises and actually recommend their use by the private sector. So we have decided to adopt most if not all of their recommended Risk Assessment Framework, with some scoping and customizing to the specific needs of RLK Enterprises. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) HIPAA Security Rule The HIPAA Security Rule specifically focuses on the safeguarding of electronic protected health information (EPHI). All HIPAA covered entities, which includes some federal agencies, must comply with the Security Rule. The Security Rule specifically focuses on protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of EPHI, as defined in the Security Rule. The EPHI that a covered entity creates, receives, maintains, or transmits must be protected against reasonably anticipated threats, hazards, and impermissible uses and/or disclosures. In general, the requirements, standards, and implementation specifications of the Security Rule apply to any provider of medical or other health services, or supplies, who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which HHS has adopted a standard. Security Rule Goals and Objectives As required by the “Security standards: General rules” section of the HIPAA Security Rule, each covered entity must: • Ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of EPHI that it creates, receives, maintains, or transmits; • Protect against any reasonably anticipated threats and hazards to the security or integrity of EPHI; and • Protect against reasonably anticipated uses or disclosures of such information that are not permitted by the Privacy Rule. In complying with this section of the Security Rule, covered entities must be aware of the definitions provided for confidentiality, integrity, and availability as given by § 164.304: • Confidentiality is “the property that data or information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized persons or processes.” • Integrity is “the property that data or information have not been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner.” • Availability is “the property that data or information is accessible and useable upon demand by an authorized person.” NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) The NIST RMF, illustrated in Figure 1, provides a disciplined, structured, extensible, and repeatable process for achieving risk-based protection related to the operation and use of information systems and the protection of EPHI. It represents an information security life cycle that facilitates continuous monitoring and improvement in the security state of the information systems within the organization. Figure 1 The steps listed in the NIST RMF create an effective information security program and can be applied to both new and legacy information systems within the context of a system development life cycle. A risk-based approach to security control selection and specification considers effectiveness, efficiency, and constraints due to applicable laws, policies, standards, or regulations. The flexible nature of the NIST RMF allows other communities of interest, such as private sector entities, to use the framework voluntarily either with the NIST security standards and guidelines or with industry-specific standards and guidelines. The RMF provides organizations with the flexibility needed to apply the right security controls to the right information systems at the right time to adequately protect the critical and sensitive information, missions, and business functions of the organization. Categorize the information system and the information resident within that system based on a FIPS 199 impact analysis. Select an initial set of security controls (i.e., security control baseline from Appendix D) for the information system based on the FIPS 199 security categorization and the minimum security requirements defined in FIPS 200; apply tailoring guidance from Section 3.3 as appropriate, to obtain the control set used as the starting point for the assessment of risk associated with the use of the system. Supplement the initial set of tailored security controls based on an assessment of risk and local conditions including organization-specific security requirements, specific threat information, cost-benefit analyses, or special circumstances. Document the agreed-upon set of security controls in the system security plan including the organization’s rationale for any refinements or adjustments to the initial set of controls. Implement the security controls in the information system. For legacy systems, some or all of the security controls selected may already be in place. Assess the security controls using appropriate methods and procedures to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the security requirements for the system. Authorize information system operation based upon a determination of the risk to organizational operations, organizational assets, or to individuals resulting from the operation of the information system and the decision that this risk is acceptable. Monitor and assess selected security controls in the information system on a continuous basis including documenting changes to the system, conducting security impact analyses of the associated changes, and reporting the security status of the system to appropriate organizational officials on a regular basis. Risk Assessment Guidelines This appendix incorporates risk assessment concepts and processes described in NIST SP 800-30 Revision 1, Effective Use of Risk Assessments in Managing Enterprise Risk, the NIST Risk Management Framework, and the HIPAA Security Series: Basics of Risk Analysis and Risk Management. It is intended to assist covered entities in identifying and mitigating risks to acceptable levels. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify conditions where EPHI could be disclosed without proper authorization, improperly modified, or made unavailable when needed. This information is then used to make risk management decisions on whether the HIPAA-required implementation specifications are sufficient or what additional addressable implementation specifications are needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Key Terms Defined When talking about risk, it is important that terminology be defined and clearly understood. This section defines important terms associated with risk assessment and management. • Risk is the potential impact that a threat can have on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability on EPHI by exploiting a vulnerability. • Threats are anything that can have a negative impact on EPHI. Threats are: Intentional (e.g., malicious intent); or

Unintentional (e.g., misconfigured server, data entry error). • Threat sources are: Natural (e.g., floods, earthquakes, storms, tornados);

Human (e.g., intentional such as identity thieves, hackers, spyware authors; unintentional such as data entry error, accidental deletions); or

Environmental (e.g., power surges and spikes, hazmat contamination, environmental pollution). • Vulnerabilities are a flaw or weakness in a system security procedure, design, implementation, or control that could be intentionally or unintentionally exercised by a threat. • Impact is a negative quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of a vulnerability being exercised on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of EPHI. It can be easy to confuse vulnerabilities and threats. An organization may be vulnerable to damage from power spikes. The threats that could exploit this vulnerability may be overloaded circuits, faulty building wiring, dirty street power, or too much load on the local grid. It is important to separate these two terms in order to assist in proper security control selection. In this example, security controls could range from installing UPS systems, additional fuse boxes, or standby generators, or rewiring the office. These additional security controls may help to mitigate the vulnerability but not necessarily for each threat. HIPAA Risk Assessment Requirements Standard 164.308(a)(1)(i), Security Management Process, requires covered entities to: Implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations. The Security Management Process standard includes four required implementation specifications. Two of these specifications deal directly with risk analysis and risk management. 1. Risk Analysis (R123) – 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A): Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information held by the covered entity. 2. Risk Management (R) – 163.308(a)(1)(ii)(B): Implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with Section 164.306(a). How to Conduct the Risk Assessment: Risk assessments can be conducted using many different methodologies. There is no single methodology that will work for all organizations and all situations. The following steps represent key elements in a comprehensive risk assessment program, and provide an example of the risk assessment methodology described in NIST SP 800-30. It is expected that these steps will be customized to most effectively identify risk for an organization based on its own uniqueness. Even though these items are listed as steps, they are not prescriptive in the order that they should be conducted. Some steps can be conducted simultaneously rather than sequentially. 1. Scope the Assessment. The first step in assessing risk is to define the scope of the effort, resulting in a general characterization of the information system, its operating environment, and its boundary. To do this, it is necessary to identify where EPHI is created, received, maintained, processed, or transmitted. The scope of a risk assessment should include both the physical boundaries of a covered entity’s location as well as a logical boundary covering the media containing EPHI, regardless of its location. Ensure that the risk assessment scope takes into consideration the remote work force and telecommuters, and removable media and portable computing devices (e.g., laptops, removable media, and backup media). 2. Gather Information. During this step, the covered entity should identify: • The conditions under which EPHI is created, received, maintained, processed, or transmitted by the covered entity; and • The security controls currently being used to protect the EPHI. This step is essential to ensure that vulnerabilities and threats are correctly identified. For example, an invalidated belief that a policy is being followed can miss a potential vulnerability, and not knowing about portable media containing EPHI can miss a threat to that environment. The level of effort needed to gather the necessary information depends heavily on the scope of the assessment and the size of the covered entity. 3. Identify Realistic Threats. Often performed simultaneously with step 4, Identify Potential Vulnerabilities, the goal of this step is to identify the potential threat sources and compile a threat statement listing potential threat-sources that are applicable to the covered entity and its operating environment. The listing of threat sources should include realistic and probable human and natural incidents that can have a negative impact on an organizations ability to protect EPHI. Threats can be easily identified by examining the environments where EPHI is being used. Many external sources can be used for threat identification. Internet searches, vendor information, insurance data, and crime statistics are all viable sources of threat data. Examples of some common threat sources are listed in Table 5 below. Table 5. Common Threat Sources 4. Identify Potential Vulnerabilities. Often performed simultaneously with step 3, Identify Realistic Threats, the goal of this step is to develop a list of vulnerabilities (flaws or weaknesses) that could be exploited by potential threat sources. This list should focus on realistic technical and nontechnical areas where EPHI can be disclosed without proper authorization, improperly modified, or made unavailable when needed. Covered entities should use internal and external sources to identify potential vulnerabilities. Internal sources may include previous risk assessments, vulnerability scan and system security test results, and audit reports. External sources may include Internet searches, vendor information, insurance data, and vulnerability databases such as the National Vulnerability Database (http://nvd.nist.gov). 5. Assess Current Security Controls. Often performed simultaneously with step 2, Gather Information, the purpose of this step is to determine if the implemented or planned security controls will minimize or eliminate risks to EPHI. A thorough understanding of the actual security controls in place for a covered entity will reduce the list of vulnerabilities, as well as the realistic probability, of a threat attacking (intentionally or unintentionally) EPHI. Covered entities should evaluate technical and nontechnical security controls at all places where EPHI is created, received, maintained, processed, or transmitted. This evaluation should determine whether the security measures implemented or planned are adequate to protect EPHI, and whether those measures required by the Security Rule are in place, configured, and used properly. The appropriateness and adequacy of security measures may vary depending on the structure, size, and geographical dispersion of the covered entity. 6. Determine the Likelihood and the Impact of a Threat Exercising a Vulnerability. The next major step in measuring the level of risk is to determine the likelihood and the adverse impact resulting from a threat successfully exploiting a vulnerability. This information can be obtained from existing organizational documentation, such as business impact and asset criticality assessments. A business impact assessment prioritizes the impact levels associated with the compromise of an organization’s information assets based on a qualitative or quantitative assessment of the sensitivity and criticality of those assets. An asset criticality assessment identifies and prioritizes the sensitive and critical organization information assets (e.g., hardware, software, systems, services, and related technology assets) that support the organization’s critical missions. If these organizational documents do not exist, the system and data sensitivity can be determined based on the level of protection required to maintain the EPHI’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The adverse impact of a security event can be described in terms of loss or degradation of any, or a combination of any, of the following three security objectives: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. Table 6 provides a brief description of each security objective and the consequence (or impact) of its not being met. Table 6. Security Objectives and Impacts Some tangible impacts can be measured quantitatively in terms of lost revenue, the cost of repairing the system, or the level of effort required to correct problems caused by a successful threat action. Other impacts, such as the loss of public confidence, the loss of credibility, or damage to an organization’s interest, cannot be measured in specific units but can be qualified or described in terms of high, medium, and low impacts. Qualitative and quantitative methods can be used to measure the impact of a threat occurring 7. Determine the Level of Risk. The purpose of this step is to assess the level of risk to the IT system. The determination of risk takes into account the information gathered and determinations made during the previous steps. The level of risk is determined by analyzing the values assigned to the likelihood of threat occurrence and resulting impact of threat occurrence. The risk-level determination may be performed by assigning a risk level based on the average of the assigned likelihood and impact levels. A risk-level matrix, such as the sample depicted in Table 7, can be used to assist in determining risk levels. Table 7. Sample Risk-Level Matrix 8. Recommend Security Controls. During this step, security controls that could mitigate the identified risks, as appropriate to the organization’s operations, are recommended. The goal of the recommended controls is to reduce the level of risk to the IT system and its data to an acceptable level. Security control recommendations provide input to the risk mitigation process, during which the recommended security controls are evaluated, prioritized, and implemented. It should be noted that not all possible recommended security controls can be implemented to reduce loss. To determine which ones are required and appropriate for a specific organization, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted for the proposed recommended controls, to demonstrate that the costs of implementing the controls can be justified by the reduction in the level of risk. In addition to cost, organizations should consider the operational impact and feasibility of introducing the recommended security controls into the operating environment. 9. Document the Risk Assessment Results. Once the risk assessment has been completed (threat sources and vulnerabilities identified, risks assessed, and security controls recommended), the results of each step in the risk assessment should be documented. NIST SP 800-30 provides a sample risk assessment report outline that may prove useful to covered entities. Risk Assessment Results Affect Risk Management The results of a risk assessment play a significant role in executing an organization’s risk management strategy. In the context of the HIPAA Security Rule, the security control baseline, which consists of the standards and required implementation specifications, should be viewed as the foundation or starting point in the selection of adequate security controls necessary to protect EPHI. In many cases, additional security controls or control enhancements will be needed to protect EPHI or to satisfy the requirements of applicable laws, policies, standards, or regulations. The risk assessment provides important inputs to determine the sufficiency of the security control baseline. The risk assessment results, coupled with the security control baseline, should be used to identify which addressable implementation specifications should be implemented to adequately mitigate identified risks. Identification and Categorization of Information Types in RLK SystemWe have identified the information types and assigned a category number on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the magnitude of harm resulting were the system to suffer a compromise of Confidentiality, Integrity, or Availability. NIST SP 800-60 provides a catalog of information types, and FIPS-199 provides a rating methodology and a definition of the three criteria. The overall FIPS-199 system categorization is the high water mark of the impact rating of all the criteria of all information types resident in the system. Category 0-1 -- The potential impact is LOW if— − The loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a limited adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. AMPLIFICATION: A limited adverse effect means that, for example, the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability might: (i) cause a degradation in mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is able to perform its primary functions, but the effectiveness of the functions is noticeably reduced; (ii) result in minor damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in minor financial loss; or (iv) result in minor harm to individuals. Category 2-3 -- The potential impact is MODERATE if— − The loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a serious adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. AMPLIFICATION: A serious adverse effect means that, for example, the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability might: (i) cause a significant degradation in mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is able to perform its primary functions, but the effectiveness of the functions is significantly reduced; (ii) result in significant damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in significant financial loss; or (iv) result in significant harm to individuals that does not involve loss of life or serious life threatening injuries. Adverse effects on individuals may include, but are not limited to, loss of the privacy to which individuals are entitled under law. FIPS Publication 199 Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems Category 4-5 -- The potential impact is HIGH if— − The loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. AMPLIFICATION: A severe or catastrophic adverse effect means that, for example, the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability might: (i) cause a severe degradation in or loss of mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is not able to perform one or more of its primary functions; (ii) result in major damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in major financial loss; or (iv) result in severe or catastrophic harm to individuals involving loss of life or serious life threatening injuries. Selection of Security Controls for SystemDuring the design and implementation life-cycle phase, a set of security controls must be selected and incorporated into the system implementation. NIST SP 800-53 provides a catalog of security controls in Special Publication 800-53, Revision 2 the following chart is a small sample of the security controls recommended, along with the control baselines. The following specific example shows the criteria for determining control baselines: Implementing and Documentation of the SystemPertinent system information such as system boundaries, information types, constituent components, responsible individuals, description of user communities, interconnections with other systems and implementation details for each security control need to be documented in the system security plan. NIST SP 800-18 Rev 1 gives guidance on documentation standards. Additional documentation such as a contingency plan for the system also needs to be prepared at this stage. Guidance on contingency planning can be found in NIST SP 800-34. Performing Risk AssessmentOnce the controls implementation are documented, a risk assessment can be performed. A risk assessments starts by identifying potential threats and vulnerabilities, and maps implemented controls to individual vulnerabilities. One then determines risk by calculating the likelihood and impact of any given vulnerability being exploited, taking into account existing controls. The culmination of the risk assessment shows the calculated risk for all vulnerabilities, and describes whether the risk is to accepted or mitigated. If mitigated, one needs to describe what additional SP 800-53 controls will be added to the system. NIST SP 800-30 provides guidance on the risk assessment process. Certification of SystemOnce the system documentation and risk assessment is complete, the system needs to have its controls assessed and certified to be functioning appropriately. For systems with a FIPS-199 categorization of Low, a self-assessment is sufficient for certification. For systems categorized at higher FIPS-199 levels, a certification performed by an independent 3rd party is required. NIST SP 800-26 provides guidance on the self-assessment process. NIST SP 800-53A provides guidance on the assessment methods applicable to individual controls. Accreditation (Authorization) of SystemOnce a system has been certified, the security documentation package is reviewed by an accrediting official, who, if satisfied with the documentation and the results of certification, accredits the system by issuing an authorization to operate. This authorization is usually for a 3 year period, and may be contingent on additional controls or processes being implemented. NIST SP 800-37 provides guidance on the certification and accreditation of systems. Continuous MonitoringAll accredited systems are required to monitor a selected set of security controls for efficacy, and the system documentation is updated to reflect changes and modifications to the system. Significant changes to the security profile of the system should trigger an updated risk assessment, and controls that are significantly modified may need to be re-certified. Guidance on continuous monitoring can be found in NIST SP 800-37 and SP 800-53A. Proposed Solution The above Framework of risk identification, security controls and mitigation procedures, when scoped to the particular needs and applied to the specific operation of RLK Enterprises, is designed to provide an acceptable level of data assurance as well as meeting Federal Government requirements and guidelines. Sources: searchSecurityTechtarget.com article by Shon Harris SP 800-37 SP 800-60 SP 800-66 SP 800-53 SP 800-53A FIPS PUB 199 FIPS PUB 200

Risk Assessment Famework

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Risk Assessment Famework (20)

Risk Assessment Famework