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.

Risk

10/3/2019
10:00 AM
John Loucaides
John Loucaides
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

How FISMA Requirements Relate to Firmware Security

Federal guidelines can help all organizations pragmatically and meaningfully improve their firmware security.

Adversaries recently have noticed that firmware and hardware constitute a serious blind spot for most organizations. While firmware may have once been the domain of nation-state attackers, it's now easier than ever for criminals to develop firmware-based attacks that bypass security and cause serious (even permanent) damage. While advances in firmware security mean that organizations no longer need specialized talent or manual analysis to protect their firmware, a risk remains.

Enter the Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA. While FISMA applies mainly to government agencies and companies doing business with the government, it is based on NIST standards that provide guidance on best practices for all organizations. It's guidance on firmware is worth the attention of both government and nongovernmental security and risk management teams. (Editor's note: Eclypsium is one of several vendors that market firmware protection products.)

First and foremost, firmware clearly falls well within scope for FISMA compliance. The regulation's far-reaching requirements are spelled out in two NIST documents. SP 800-37 lays out a Risk Management Framework (RMF), and SP 800-53 addresses Security and Privacy Controls. Both NIST documents identify firmware as a critical part of a security program. In fact, they consistently include firmware along with hardware and software when describing the components of technology and devices to be protected. The question isn't whether to include firmware in a security program, but which firmware to include.

Understanding the Threat and Scope
In the first phase of the RiskManagementFramework (RMF) Overview ("Prepare"), organizations are called to define their high-level risk strategy based on their unique mission, tolerance for risk, types of threats such as cyberattacks, and other factors. Given their high-risk level, firmware security threats should be considered as part of these efforts. This requires an understanding of the scope and severity of these threats.

Firmware is the foundational code of a device. System firmware such as BIOS or UEFI runs before the operating system. Threats at this level can subvert security controls and assumptions made by the operating system or applications.

Firmware is also present in virtually every piece of hardware in a computer system, from the storage drives to the network adapters. Attackers have plenty of opportunity to eavesdrop on data stored on a system or transmitted over its network connections, or to disable the device altogether — all at the firmware level. To further exacerbate the problem, firmware threats subvert traditional security controls and survive common incident response processes. For example, attackers can persist in the firmware even if the operating system is reinstalled to a known, good version. All of this adds up to a high potential impact on a system's confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Choosing Security Controls for Firmware
Once agencies identify the systems to be protected, they must implement the proper security controls, as enumerated in NIST SP 800-53. The following families of security and privacy controls identified in the document may naturally apply to firmware security:

  • SI–System and Information Integrity
  • SA-Systems and Services Acquisition
  • CM-Configuration Management
  • AC-Access Control
  • RA-Risk Assessment
  • IR-Incident Response
  • MA-Maintenance

A Call to Arms
Many of the controls specifically call out firmware security. For example, Configuration Management states the importance of only using updates that are cryptographically signed. As examples, the document identifies "firmware version updates, patches, service packs, device drivers, and basic input output system (BIOS) updates."

Control SI-7 also addresses firmware, along with software and information integrity. The Control specifically addresses the need to ensure the integrity of the system boot process as well as the integrity of the boot firmware.

Section MA-3 of SP 800-53 also demands that organizations consider firmware security. This time, in respect to the tools administrators use to service a system. According to the document, maintenance tools can include hardware, software, and firmware items that are "potential vehicles for transporting malicious code, intentionally or unintentionally, into a facility and subsequently into systems."

Firmware is explicitly within the scope of FISMA. More importantly, because of ongoing efforts across the industry, the cost of including firmware protections into a security program is now lower than ever. With open source and commercial tools available, organizations can now deploy firmware security at scale in the supply chain, in operations, and in incident response. Armed with an understanding of the severity and scope of the firmware threat, organizations can determine the proper controls required to comply with FISMA and — perhaps more importantly — strengthen their firmware security in a noticeable, practical way.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "How the City of Angels Is Tackling Cyber Devilry."

John is VP R&D at Eclypsium, the industry's leading enterprise firmware protection platform. John has extensive history in hardware and firmware threats from experience at Intel and the United States government. At Intel he served as the Director of Advanced Threat Research, ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-20733
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Improper authorization in handler for custom URL scheme vulnerability in ????????? (asken diet) for Android versions from v.3.0.0 to v.4.2.x allows a remote attacker to lead a user to access an arbitrary website via the vulnerable App.
CVE-2021-20734
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in Welcart e-Commerce versions prior to 2.2.4 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-20735
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in ETUNA EC-CUBE plugins (Delivery slip number plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.10 and earlier, Delivery slip number csv bulk registration plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.8 and earlier, and Delivery slip number mail plugin (3.0 series) 1.0.8 and earlier) allows remote attackers to ...
CVE-2021-20736
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
NoSQL injection vulnerability in GROWI versions prior to v4.2.20 allows a remote attacker to obtain and/or alter the information stored in the database via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-20737
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Improper authentication vulnerability in GROWI versions prior to v4.2.20 allows a remote attacker to view the unauthorized pages without access privileges via unspecified vectors.