On August 1, 2017, the Senate introduced the “Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017”, which aims to bolster the security of government-acquired IoT devices.  Sponsored by Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Steve Daines (R-MT), the bill would require connected devices purchased by the government agencies to be patchable, rely on industry standard protocols, not use hard-coded passwords, and not contain any known security vulnerabilities.

The bill would also require each executive level agency head to inventory all connected devices used by the agency.  OMB and DHS would establish guidelines for the agencies based on DHS’s Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program.  Specifically, the bill directs OMB to develop alternative network-level security requirements for devise within limited data process and software functionality.  It also directs DHS to issue guidelines regarding cybersecurity coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies to be required by contractors providing connected devices to the U.S. Government.  Finally, researchers would be exempted from liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when engaging in good-faith research pursuant to adopted coordinated vulnerability disclosure guidelines.

This legislation follows calls for more security and standards addressing IoT devices to further safeguard information from potential attacks. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently recommended that the Department of Defense update its policies to address IoT risks that leave them vulnerable to attacks.  In addition, Trump’s executive order on cybersecurity called for reports with recommendations to reduce the threat of botnets and other automated distributed attacks.

In a press release, Senator Warner, co-chair of the Senate Cybersecurity Caucus (SCC), states that the bill would provide “thorough, yet flexible guidelines for Federal Government procurements of connected devices.”  In the same statement, the SCC’s co-chair, Sen. Garner, states the bill would “ensure the federal government leads by example and purchases devices that meet basic requirements to prevent hackers from penetrating our government systems.”

To view the introduced legislation, click here.

To view the public statement, click here.

To view the fact sheet summary, click here.

Earlier this month, the new cybersecurity regulation from the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS“) took effect. The new regulation requires banks, insurance companies and other financial services institutions regulated by the DFS to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry.

The final cybersecurity regulation is very similar to the proposed regulation, which we reported on in a previous post, but contains a few notable changes:

  • Record retention requirements for audit trails designed to detect and respond to Cybersecurity Events were reduced from five years to three years.
  • Clarification that Covered Entities’ policies and procedures regarding notice to be provided by Third Party Service Providers of Cybersecurity Events cover only Covered Entity’s Nonpublic Information being held by the Third Party Service Provider.
  • Clarification of the circumstances under which a Covered Entity must provide notice of Cybersecurity Event to the Superintendent.
  • The limited exemptions have been revised to specifically include the number of employees and the gross annual revenue of a Covered Entity’s affiliates located in New York.
  • Clarification on the exemptions available for companies regulated under New York’s Insurance Law.

Financial institutions in other states may wish to pay particular attention to this “first-in-the-nation cybersecurity regulation” issued by a state financial regulator, particularly as it may be only a matter of time before other states follow New York’s lead.

The DFS regulation, 23 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 500, is available here.

On January 10, 2017, NIST issued an update to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (v.1.1).  After reviewing public comment and convening a workshop, NIST intends to publish a final version of this Version 1.1 in the fall of 2017.

Key updates the framework include:

  • Metrics.  A new section 4.0 on Measuring and Demonstrating Cybersecurity to discuss correlation of business results to cybersecurity risk management metrics and measures.
  • Supply Chain.  A greatly expanded explanation of using the framework for supply chain risk management purposes.
  • Authentication, Authorization and Identify Proofing.  Refinements to the language of the Access Control category to account for authentication, authorization, and identify proofing.  A subcategory has been added, and the Category has been renamed to “Identity Management and Access Control (PR.AC) to better represent the scope of the Category and corresponding subcategories.
  • Explanation of Relationship between Implementation Tiers and Profiles.  Adds language on using Framework Tiers in Framework implementation, to reflect integration of Framework considerations within organizational risk management programs, and to update Figure 2.0 to include actions from the Framework Tiers.

More detail on the changes can be found in Appendix D.  NIST seeks public comment on the following questions:

  • Are there any topics not addressed in the draft Framework Version 1.1 that could be addressed in the final?
  • How do the changes made in the draft Version 1.1 impact the cybersecurity ecosystem?
  • For those using Version 1.0, would the proposed changes impact your current use of the Framework? If so, how?
  • For those not currently using Version 1.0, does the draft Version 1.1 affect your decision to use the Framework? If so, how?
  • Does this proposed update adequately reflect advances made in the Roadmap areas?
  • Is there a better label than “version 1.1” for this update?
  • Based on this update, activities in Roadmap areas, and activities in the cybersecurity ecosystem, are there additional areas that should be added to the Roadmap? Are there any areas that should be removed from the Roadmap?

A redline version of the framework can be found by clicking here.  A clean version of the Framework may be found by clicking here.