-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request #19 from uscensusbureau/readme
add project goals and background to the README
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
27 additions
and
1 deletion.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1 +1,27 @@ | ||
# fismatic | ||
# FISMAtic | ||
|
||
The goal of FISMAtic is to reduce the amount of time spent authoring, reviewing, and editing the security compliance documentation leading up to an Authority to Operate (ATO). We plan to build prototype(s) that: | ||
|
||
- Automate validation of and feedback on security compliance documentation | ||
- Think "Clippy for ATOs" :eyes: :paperclip: :lock: | ||
- Help compliance teams select security controls that are appropriate to a system (tailored baselines) | ||
- This can cut out time spent around irrelevant controls in all other steps of the compliance lifecycle | ||
|
||
## Background | ||
|
||
"The ATO process", as it's commonly called, is formally defined in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)'s [Risk Management Framework (RMF)](<https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/risk-management/risk-management-framework-(RMF)-Overview>): | ||
|
||
<img alt="NIST Risk Management Framework diagram" width="500" src="https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/Risk-Management/images-media/OrgRMF_v3.png"/> | ||
|
||
Security compliance is time consuming (and therefore expensive) for most organizations in and around the federal government. Two particular pain points were identified: | ||
|
||
- Select[ing] Controls that are appropriate for a given system | ||
- The back-and-forth between delivery teams and assessors Implement/Assess[ing the] Controls | ||
|
||
Delivery teams, who may or may not have experience writing System Security Plans (SSPs), spend a lot of time working on the language for security controls. This is then sent to the assessor, who may be pointing out common mistakes. Each of these back-and-forths can take days or weeks, costing staff hours on both sides and stretching out the time before the project can actually deliver value to users. | ||
|
||
**Our hypothesis is that we can reduce the time spent on the Select, Implement, and Assess Controls steps of the RMF through tooling.** | ||
|
||
## Call for collaborators | ||
|
||
If you’ve worked in this space or are interested in collaborating, please reach out in an issue or by email. Thanks! [email protected] |