Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

Fed Workers Still in the Dark

Despite completing awareness courses, majority of government workers say they've never heard of key guidelines

Here on Memorial Day -- the day when federal employees remember their past -- a researcher is about to reveal that many of those workers can't remember what they were supposed to have learned just a few months ago.

SecureInfo, a security firm that specializes in federal government services, will publish Tuesday a study showing that although more than 90 percent of agency workers have completed a security awareness training course in the last 12 months, 65 percent of them have never heard of FISMA, the federal IT security standard.

The Federal Information Security Management Act defines the U.S. government's requirements for information security, both in IT and among workers and contractors. FISMA is to government workers what Sarbanes-Oxley is to public companies, or HIPAA is to the health-care industry.

Under FISMA, agency employees are required to complete a "security awareness" course every year, and both the SecureInfo study and the FISMA report to Congress indicate that more than 90 percent of workers have completed that course.

Yet, when SecureInfo polled government employees about FISMA, 65 percent said they had never heard of it. Forty-seven percent of those who had heard of it described it as "a compliance headache." Only 45 percent of those who had heard of FISMA believe it to be "an effective means of improving security posture," the study says.

"The federal government spent approximately $74 million on security awareness training last year," notes Chris Fountain, president and CEO of SecureInfo. "But based on what we found in the study, it doesn't seem to have been very effective."

SecureInfo's study may be self-serving, since the company offers both government security training and penetration testing services. But other reports support the company's thesis that federal agencies are not doing enough on the security front. Just last week, the General Accounting Office published a report stating that the FBI's IT systems are vulnerable to insider attack. (See FBI's IT Security Vulnerable to Insiders, GAO Finds.) And last month, cyber security experts told Congress that federal agencies are not prepared for online attacks. (See Experts: US Not Prepared for Cyber Attack.)

The problem, in part, is that while government workers are trained in security, they are seldom tested on their knowledge or practices, Fountain says. "There ought to be some sort of testing, and if they don't pass, then it should be reflected in [employee performance] appraisals."

Government agencies also should be penetration-tested frequently during the course of the year, to determine whether employees are adhering to policy. "In the public sector, there have been studies that show that more than 80 percent of breaches occur because of inadvertent mistakes -- employees who don't know the policy or simply ignore it without any malicious intent," Fountain says. "Those are the employees you want to target."

Fountain recommends systematic testing of federal security systems, both through ethical hacking from the outside and through social engineering to test the physical security of government buildings and desktops. "You don't have to do it all at once," he says. "You can do it in small increments, testing different elements over the course of the year."

Many experts recently have despaired about user training, noting that despite a large investment, end users are still making the same mistakes. (See Getting Users Fixed and Giving Up Hope on Users.)

"I used to work for eBay, and we spent millions and millions and millions on user training," recalls Robert Hansen (a.k.a. RSnake), founder of SecTheory, ha.ckers.org, and sla.ckers.org. "The end result was it didn’t do any good."

But closing the end-user vulnerability can't be done entirely through technology, Fountain counters. "You can have great technology, but it isn't going to stop the user from putting a yellow sticky on the keyboard with all his passwords."

The full study will be available tomorrow.

— Tim Wilson, Site Editor, Dark Reading

  • SecureInfo Corp.

    Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio
     

    Recommended Reading:

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
    Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
    Data Loss Spikes Under COVID-19 Lockdowns
    Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  5/28/2020
    Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
    Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon Contest
    Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
    Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
    Current Issue
    How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
    This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
    Flash Poll
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2020-13777
    PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
    GnuTLS 3.6.x before 3.6.14 uses incorrect cryptography for encrypting a session ticket (a loss of confidentiality in TLS 1.2, and an authentication bypass in TLS 1.3). The earliest affected version is 3.6.4 (2018-09-24) because of an error in a 2018-09-18 commit. Until the first key rotation, the TL...
    CVE-2020-10548
    PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
    rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated devices.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
    CVE-2020-10549
    PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
    rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated snippets.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
    CVE-2020-10546
    PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
    rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated compliancepolicies.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
    CVE-2020-10547
    PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
    rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated compliancepolicyelements.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.