Pending Legislation In U.S. Congress, Part I: FY 2021 NDAA and FISA Reauthorization

Normally, a FISA reauthorization would be considered must pass like an NDAA, but this year may be different.   

As Congress returns from an eventful summer recess, it is possible technology focused and related legislation is passed or advances towards passage before the body leaves Washington in late September. However, it is just as likely, possibly even more, that Congress punts everything except for a measure to keep the government funded through the November election. This week, we will explore some of the bills that may become law. Today’s piece is on the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the lapsed provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FY 2021 NDAA

Congress will almost certainly pass its annual policy and authorization bill for the Department of Defense (DOD) as it has done for every year since FY 1962. Any more, this bill is laden with technology provisions, most of which are oriented towards national security programs, but not always because the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is considered must-pass legislation, it attracts some legislation that is non-defense. For example, the revamp of how the United States government buys and develops information technology programs, the “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) (P.L. 113-291), was enacted as part of the FY 2015 NDAA.

The House and Senate have passed their respective bills: the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) and the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) and have already started work on resolving differences between the two packages. However, over the last decade or so, the NDAA has been one of the last major bills passed each calendar year, and it is possible this legislation will not reach the President’s desk until late December.

The base bill put on the floor of the House contained a range of cybersecurity provisions. The DOD’s requirement that it must submit its cybersecurity and information technology (IT) budget would be broadened to include cyber mission force and a its new cyber operations force budgets. The Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) structure would be changed and would be extended. The DOD would need to study and consider replicating an entity inside the Navy that has been researching and pioneering cyber warfare. The DOD’s Principal Cyber Advisor would be invested with the authority to manage the Pentagon’s role as the sector-specific agency (SSA) for the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) under Presidential Policy Directive- 21. The bill also increased the DOD’s reporting requirements to Congress regarding compromises of its system and exceptions to its IT policies with the goal of creating a baseline to help the Pentagon manage its cyber risks and tradeoffs. The DOD would determine whether a current public-private partnership on cybersecurity is working and should be extended.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would need to submit a report on the feasibility of an Integrated Cyber Center housed at its National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). DHS would need to work with the DOD, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and National Security Agency (NSA) on whether it makes sense to create a joint collaboration environment to help shore up cybersecurity. The Pentagon would need to study and then implement a threat hunting program that would allow its personnel to go searching for vulnerabilities and cyber risks in the IT systems of DIB contractors. The DOD would be barred from contracting with entities that do not belong to the DIB threat intelligence sharing program. The bill would also permit the DOD to make grants to companies providing cybersecurity to small manufacturers in the U.S. The bill would establish a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative to support and foster a number of related activities including research and development, education, and training.

During floor consideration of H.R.6395, the House agreed to scores of amendments in two en bloc packages that contained most of the technology provisions made in order for consideration. Among the most notable of these provisions are the following, some of which have been considered by the House as standalone legislation:

The cybersecurity provisions in S.4049 would change, alter, or establish a range of programs and operations. The bill would modify the statutory duties of Department of Defense’s Principal Cyber Advisor to require that the person chosen for this role is a civilian at the Pentagon who holds a position requiring Senate confirmation. The DOD would need to develop and implement a framework for forward hunt operations (i.e. offensive cyber operations) to address some of the issues the committee’s oversight turned up. The focus on this exercise would be to get a better understanding on the utility and life span of intelligence gained through such operations. The Pentagon’s reporting duties after executing an offensive or defensive cyber operation would be expanded to include nations and entities with whom the United States is not at war. The Committee expanded the DOD’s required briefings on cyber operations, expressing frustration with the Department’s “unwillingness to keep the committee apprised of cyber operations conducted to gain access to adversary systems, including those conducted pursuant to standing military plans against military targets.”

There is language mandating that the DOD begin the process of harmonizing the Pentagon’s cyber capabilities and those provided by private sector contractors, much of which overlaps in the view of the committee. Cyber Command would receive expanded but necessarily acquisition authority as the service branches are to remain the entities undertaking large procurements. The Principal Cyber Advisor and head of Cyber Command would need to assess how well the DOD manages inter-agency conflict in the Pentagon and among Intelligence Community agencies in managing the process by which cyber operations are designed and executed, suggesting there is significant internal friction among the stakeholders. The DOD would need to conduct a pilot on the feasibility of adopting and using a commercial practice of speed-based cybersecurity metrics. The Pentagon would also need to better integrate its data collection and data analysis regarding potentially malicious or illegal activities by DOD employees and contractors (i.e. so-called insider threat).

The DOD would need “to develop a comprehensive plan, by February 1, 2021, for the deployment of commercial-off-the-shelf solutions on supplier networks to monitor the public-facing Internet attack surface of members of the defense industrial base (DIB)” that is intended to supplement the DOD’s new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification and other DOD efforts to shore up the cybersecurity of its contractors. The bill would grant a DOD request to receive the authority to immediately react and respond to reported threats and penetrations to “operationally critical” DOD contractors’ systems and networks. The DOD would need “to conduct a baseline review of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) activity to determine whether the initiative should continue, but as a program of record, or should be replaced by an improved design and modern technology.” The DOD would also receive limited flexibility to use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) “for cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects.” The committee also conditioned the availability of certain Office of the Secretary of Defense travel on fulfilling a requirement in the current year’s NDAA to submit “a report for the structuring and manning of information operations capabilities and forces” in the DOD, develop “a strategy for operations in the information environment” and to “conduct an information operations posture review.”

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) would have its mandate extended so it could monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of its 75 recommendations made in March 2020. The bill includes a number of CSC recommendations, including:

  • Adding “a force structure assessment of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Operations Forces to future cyber posture reviews.”
  • “a report to the congressional defense committees, detailing the actions that the Secretary will undertake to ensure that the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, has enhanced authority, direction, and control of the Cyber Operations Forces and of the equipment budget that enables Cyber Operations Forces’ operations and readiness, beginning with fiscal year 2024 budget request.”
  • Assessing “options for establishing a cyber reserve force.”
  • A comprehensive plan for “[e]nsuring cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control system”
  • Requiring “the Secretary of Defense to establish policies and requirements for each major weapon system, and the priority critical infrastructure essential to the proper functioning of major weapon systems in broader mission areas, to be re-assessed for cyber vulnerabilities.”
  • Mandating that the Secretary of Defense “establish a threat intelligence sharing program to share threat intelligence with and obtain threat intelligence from the defense industrial base.”
  • Requiring the Pentagon “to conduct an assessment of the adequacy of threat hunting elements of the Cyber Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program and the need for continuous threat monitoring operations.”
  • Addressing “the risks to National Security Systems (NSSs) posed by quantum computing by requiring the Secretary of Defense to: (1) Complete an assessment of current and potential threats to critical NSSs and the standards used for quantum-resistant cryptography; and (2) Provide recommendations for research and development activities to secure NSSs.”
  • Study the feasibility of establishment of a National Cyber Director.

In terms of the provisions that were folded into the final Senate bill, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) succeeded in attached to the larger bill the “Cybersecurity Vulnerability Identification and Notification Act of 2019” (S.3045). S.3045 would expand the authority of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) to issue subpoenas to internet service providers to obtain the identity of owners and operators of critical infrastructure subject to be drafted procedures and limits on how any information collected from subpoena is used and retained. The House’s counterpart bill, H.R.5680, was added as an amendment to H.R.6395, meaning the substance of the legislation will almost certainly be in the final NDAA. Also, an amendment was adopted to stimulate semiconductor manufacturing in the United States by creating a grant and tax incentive program at the Department of Commerce

There were other technology provisions added to the bill during debate. The following amendments were adopted on 2 July en bloc by unanimous consent:

  • The Department of Homeland of Security “shall produce a report on the state of digital content forgery technology” within one year of enactment and then every five years
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, with appropriate representatives of the Armed Forces, shall brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the feasibility and the current status of assigning members of the Armed Forces on active duty to the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) of the Department of Defense.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ability of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to fulfill–
    • the missions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and
    • the recommendations detailed in the report issued by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission”
  • The “Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act” (DIGIT Act) (S.1611) that would require the Department of Commerce to “convene a working group of Federal stakeholders for the purpose of providing recommendations and a report to Congress relating to the aspects of the Internet of Things.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, shall leverage, to the maximum extent practicable, the capabilities of United States industry, including through the use of commercial geospatial-intelligence services and acquisition of commercial satellite imagery.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish a pilot program to explore the use of consumption-based solutions to address software-intensive warfighting capability” per a re commendation made by the Section 809 Panel.
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense shall complete a study on the cyberexploitation of the personal  information and accounts of members of the Armed Forces and their families.”
  • A modified version of the “Utilizing Strategic Allied (USA) Telecommunications Act” (S.3189) that “would reassert U.S. and Western leadership by encouraging competition with Huawei that capitalizes on U.S. software advantages, accelerating development of an open-architecture model (known as O-RAN) that would allow for alternative vendors to enter the market for specific network components, rather than having to compete with Huawei end-to-end” according to a press release.

Additionally, a deal was struck to add the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (S.3905) to S.4049 but without a bill included in the package as reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee: the “Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act” (FIRE Act) (S.2242).

FISA Reauthorization

At present, key surveillance authorities for new investigations have lapsed, and it does not appear Congress is close to a deal to restore and reform them, an unusual state of affairs, for since 11 September 2001, it has done so regularly. The House and Senate have both passed bills but have been unable to agree on the extent of reforms to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) programs given antipathy from the Trump Administration on proposed changes and opposition from some Democrats and Republicans who want to see more significant reforms. It is always possible a compromise package is agreed to and then tacked onto the FY 2021 NDAA, a continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriations bill as has happened before.

In March, the House passed the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) by a 278-136 vote, a bill to reauthorize three expiring FISA provisions used by the National Security Agency (NSA) primarily to conduct surveillance: the business records exception, roving wiretaps, and the “lone wolf” provision. Moreover, H.R. 6172 ends the NSA’s ability to use the so-called call detail record (CDR) program that had allowed the agency to access data on many billions of calls. Nonetheless, the NSA shut down the program in 2018 due to what it termed technical problems. This closure of the program was included in the bill even though the Trump Administration had explicitly requested it also be reauthorized.

These authorities had been extended in December 2019 to March 15, 2020. However, the Senate did not act immediately on the bill and opted instead to send a 77-day extension of these now lapsed authorities to the House, which did not to take up the bill. The Senate was at an impasse on how to proceed, for some Members did not favor the House reforms while others wanted to implement further changes to the FISA process. Consequently, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) promised amendment votes when the Senate took up H.R.6172, which it did in May. Thereafter, reforms House Democratic leadership tried adding to the bill failed to please stakeholders, leaving the chamber to squelch plans to send a revised bill to the Senate and instead ask for a conference, which is where matters currently stand.

As mentioned, H.R. 6172 would reauthorize the business records exception, which includes “any tangible thing,” in FISA first instituted in the “USA PATRIOT Act” in 2001 but would reform certain aspects of the program. For example, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or NSA is seeking a business record under FISA for which a law enforcement agency would need to obtain a warrant, then the FBI or NSA will also need to obtain a warrant. Currently, this is not the case. Additionally, under H.R.6172, the FISA application process under Section 215 could not be used to obtain a person’s cell site location or GPS information. However, the FBI or NSA would still be able to use Title I of FISA to seek cell site location or GPS data for purposes of conducting electronic surveillance related to alleged foreign intelligence. The bill would require that prosecutors must inform defendants of the evidence derived from electronic surveillance unless doing so would harm national security.

Moreover, records obtained under Section 215 could be retained no longer than five years subject to a number of exceptions that may serve to make this limitation a dead letter. For example, if such records are deemed to have a “secret meaning” or are certified by the FBI as being vital to national security, then such records may be held longer than five years. Given the tendency of agencies to read their authority as broadly as possible and the past record of IC agencies, it is likely these authorities will be stretched as far as legally possible. It bears note that all restrictions are prospective, meaning that current, ongoing uses of Section 215 would be exempted. The business records provision would be extended until December 1, 2023 as are the other two expiring authorities that permit so-called roving wiretaps and allow for surveillance of so-called “lone wolves.”

For FISA applications under Title I (i.e. electronic surveillance), any agency seeking a FISA order to surveil will need to disclose to the FISA court any information that may call into question the accuracy of the application or any doubtful information. Moreover, certain FISA applications to surveil Americans or residents would need to spell out the proposed investigative techniques to the FISA court. Moreover, any FISA application targeting U.S. officials or candidates for federal office must be approved by the Attorney General in writing before they can be submitted. H.R.6172 would permit the suspension or removal of any federal official, employee, or contractor for misconduct before the FISA court and increases criminal liability for violating FISA from five to eight years. Most of these reforms seem aimed at those Members, many of whom are Republican, that were alarmed by the defects in the FISA surveillance process of Trump Campaign associate Cater Page as turned up by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General investigation. Some of these Members were opposed to the House Judiciary Committee’s initial bill, which they thought did not implement sufficient reforms to the larger FISA process.

In May, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 6172 by an 80-16 vote. Consideration of the bill was stalled in March when some Senators pushed for amendments, a demand to which the Senate Majority Leader finally agreed, provided these amendments would need 60 votes to be adopted. Consequently, once COVID-19 legislation had been considered, the Senate returned to H.R.6172, and debated and voted upon three amendments, one of which was agreed to. Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee’s (R-UT) amendment to expand the amicus process during the FISA process prevailed by a 77-19 vote.

As mentioned, Wyden and Daines offered an amendment to narrow the Section 215 exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a search requires a warrant. Section 215 currently allows for FISA court approved searches of business records and all tangible things in the course of a national security investigation, and the underlying text of H.R. 6172 would exclude cell site location and GPS location from Section 215. The Wyden/Daines amendment would also exclude web browsing and search engine histories. However, the amendment failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for adoption under the rule of debate for H.R. 6172, failing by one vote as four Senators did not vote.

In late May, it appeared as if the House would bring H.R. 6172 to the floor and possibly take a run at adding language that barely failed to get added during debate in the Senate that would further pare back the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to use the FISA process for surveillance. However, the Trump Administration more forcefully stated its objections to the amended bill, including a veto threat issued via Twitter, that caused Republican support for the bill to cave, and with it the chances of passage, for Republican votes were needed to pass the bill in the first place. Consequently, House Democratic Leadership explored the possibility of a clean vote on the Senate-amended bill, with the House Rules Committee reporting a rule for debate, but this effort was also scuttled as there were not the votes for passage of the bill to send it to the White House. Instead, House Democratic Leadership opted to go to conference committee, which succeeded in a 284-122 proxy vote, one of the first taken under the new procedure. Thereafter, the House named the following conferees: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH); House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). The bill is being held at the desk in the Senate and Senate conferees have not been named, meaning the conference committee cannot formally begin.  

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Image by ArtTower from Pixabay

House Starts Consideration of Its NDAA

The House will consider scores of amendments to change US technology policy, including a number of implement the recommendations of a congressional cybersecurity panel. However, some may not be in the final NDAA.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

As is almost always the case, House Members are using the occasion of the annual consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to offer a range of amendments to the House Rules Committee. Hundreds of amendments were submitted, and at the 17 July hearing, the Committee determined which would be made in order and allow to be debated on the House floor, including scores of technology amendments. Many of these amendments to the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) would change US technology policy and funding, and some are complete bills the House has already passed, for inclusion in the NDAA increases the chances of enactment. Among the higher profile amendments made in order is one offered by Cyberspace Solarium Commission members that would establish a National Cyber Director position in the White House that the Senate declined to include in its FY 2021 NDAA, suggesting addition to the House’s bill does not necessarily this provision will make it into law.

Earlier today, the House began its consideration of H.R.6395, which may take up the better part of the week. The House Rules Committee made the following amendments in order to be offered during debate that pertain to technology:

The House Armed Services Committee has also released its Committee Report in two parts (Volume I and II) and detailed the overall funding authorized by the package:

H.R. 6395 supports an overall authorization of $740.5 billion dollars for our national defense. H.R. 6395 would authorize approximately $662.6 billion in discretionary spending for national defense and approximately $69.0 billion in discretionary spending for Over-seas Contingency Operations. This authorization level will allow our military to maintain readiness, expand capabilities, and invest in the new software and technologies required to secure our country.

The committee included a number of requests and directives of the DOD and other agencies, including but not limited to:

  • Report on Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification
    • The committee acknowledges that the Department of Defense has taken initial steps to ensure that its contractors are aware of the actions necessary to protect the government’s data and networks from cybersecurity threats. However, the committee is concerned that there remain key unanswered questions about how it will implement its cybersecurity framework, especially given the level of collaboration necessary between industry and government for its success. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2021, regarding the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Report on Ties between Russia and China
    • The Department of Defense has acknowledged that China and Russia are increasingly working in cooperation on a wide range of matters, including economically, politically, and militarily; and that the Department believes the growing ties between Russia and China are challenging the rules-based order and present a threat to U.S. national security interests. The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy highlights the joint force’s eroding competitive edge against China and Russia. The committee endeavors to fully understand the extent of the ties between Russia and China. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by March 1, 2021, on the relationship between China and Russia.
  • Fourth Estate Network Optimization
    • The committee recognizes the importance of creating efficiencies and cost savings within the Fourth Estate and across the Department of Defense, to include the consolidation of information technology services away from legacy common use information technology services into a single service provider (SSP). The committee notes that on August 15, 2019 the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to execute such consolidation under the Fourth Estate Network Optimization (4ENO) effort over the period of fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2024. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2021, on the status of the consolidation effort, including details on the schedule and plan for consolidation, progress on the transition of each Defense Agency and Field Activity (DAFA) from common use information technology services into the SSP environment, the list of assets and services being transitioned, a list of assets and services remaining within each DAFA, a justification for assets not transitioned, and the reallocation of funding as a result of the transition.
  • GAO Assessment on DOD Cyber Incident Management Efforts
    • The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has experienced a number of high-profile breaches to Department of Defense (DOD) systems and networks. For example, in July 2015, a phishing attack on the Joint Chiefs of Staff unclassified email servers resulted in the system being shut down for more than a week while cyber experts rebuilt the network, affecting the work of roughly 4,000 military and civilian personnel. In 2018, DOD disclosed a data breach to its contracted travel management system that allegedly affected approximately 30,000 military and civilian employees. In 2020, DOD similarly acknowledged that the Defense Information Systems Agency networks were breached that reportedly resulted in the personal data of approximately 200,000 network users being compromised.
    • The committee is concerned that while DOD established the Joint Force Headquarters–DOD Information Network (JFHQ– DODIN) to operationalize and defend DOD systems and networks, other DOD components still view these systems and networks as an administrative capability. Cyber incidents, such as those identified above, can disrupt critical military operations, lead to inappropriate access to and modification of sensitive information, result in long-term financial obligations for credit monitoring, and threaten national security. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide the congressional defense committees with an assessment of DOD management of cyber incidents and efforts to mitigate future cyber incidents.
  • GAO Study and Report on Electronic Continuity of Operations on the Department of Defense
    • The committee notes the centrality of electronic command, control, and communications to Department of Defense continuity of operations. To ensure that the committee is fully informed of how the Department of Defense is addressing issues related to the risk to electronic communications, the committee requests that the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study of electronic communications continuity of operations of the Department of Defense.
  • Information Technology Asset Management and Inventory
    • The committee commends the Department of Defense for the considerable improvement made on information technology, asset discovery, and asset management. However, the committee believes the Department would benefit from an established process for auditing software and hardware inventories. The lack of a single policy framework hinders the capacity of the Department to discover license duplication and the Department is at risk of wasting valuable resources on redundant or underutilized hardware and software. The Department also lacks real-time discovery of and visibility over its network attack surface, particularly its forward-facing internet assets and Department assets held in cloud environments, resulting in increased risk of exposures exploitable by malicious adversaries. The private sector has successfully navigated this challenge through the use of automated software tools widely available on the commercial market.
    • The committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, in coordination with chief information officers of the military services, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2021, on the processes in place for asset discovery and management of hardware and software products.
  • Internet Architecture Security
    • The committee recognizes that the internet is inextricable and central to the American way of life, and the architecture that enables internet communications is layered, complex, and multi-faceted. The committee notes that this architecture includes high-capacity cables laid underground and underseas, cable landing stations that connect cables from continent to continent, and internet exchange points that serve as clearinghouses for data between Internet Service Providers and content delivery networks; all of which are required for the internet to operate. The committee recognizes that the executive branch has assigned responsibility for components or sectors of critical infrastructure to various executive branch departments and agencies, and internet architecture is approached in a fractured and piecemeal fashion, with multiple government stakeholder entities claiming responsibility. The committee is concerned that the lack of direction on the subject of internet architecture security creates significant risks to the nation. Consequently, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2021, to examine the issue of internet architecture security.
  • Report and GAO Briefing on DOD Cyber Hygiene and Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Framework
    • Given the importance of implementing cyber hygiene practices that could effectively protect DOD missions, information, and systems and networks, we direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the defense committees identifying the extent to which each of the DOD components have implemented cyber hygiene practices and levels identified in the CMMC framework. For each DOD component that does not achieve level 3 status (referred to as ‘‘good cyber hygiene’’ in CMMC Model ver. 1.02), the head of the component is to provide the Congressional defense committees, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the commander of JFHQ–DODIN a plan on how the component will implement those security measures within one year and mitigate potential consequences until those practices are implemented. In order to aid in the under-standing of what cyber hygiene practices have been and have not been implemented by the DOD that the department requires private sector companies to implement before they receive a contract where they would have access to controlled unclassified information, the Secretary of Defense shall submit the DOD report to the Congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United States by March 1, 2021. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to conduct an independent review of the Secretary’s report and provide a briefing to the Congressional defense committees no later than the end of the fiscal year.
  • Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Capabilities and Strategy
    • The committee believes that global leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) technology is a national security priority. In 2018, the Department of Defense issued a department-wide AI strategy to provide direction for AI development. As the Department increases its investments in AI, machine learning, and other automation technologies, the committee believes that the Department’s re-sources, capabilities, and plans should continue to ensure U.S. competitive advantage over potential adversaries. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide the committee with an assessment of the Department’s resources, capabilities, and plans for AI.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Image by David Mark from Pixabay

National Cyber Director Hearing

The primary committee of jurisdiction over a bill to create a White House Cyber Director held a hearing on the ramifications of creating just such a position.  

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

On 14 July, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a virtual hearing to discuss the recently introduced “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331) that would implement one of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) most significant recommendations. Representative James Langevin (D-RI), who served on the CSC, introduced the bill a few weeks ago when it appeared clear that neither Armed Services Committee will include the CSC’s recommendation that a position be established inside the Executive Office of the President of a National Cyber Director to coordinate much of the United States’ cyber policy that would need to be confirmed by the Senate. Langevin and a number of others submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee for consideration of the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) that would add H.R.7331 to the House’s FY 2021 NDAA. It is possible this amendment is made in order and will be debated on the House floor when the chamber turns to H.R.6395, which could happen as soon as next week.

The holding of this hearing is likely part of an effort to convince House Democratic Leadership and the House Rules and Armed Services Committees of the support for H.R.7331 so that it can be debated during consideration of the FY 2021 NDAA. The chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee cosponsored Langevin’s amendment as did a number of Republicans, demonstrating its bipartisan nature. Also, having held a hearing at which a number of witnesses endorsed the idea will lend further weight to it being allowed to be offered to the annual Department of Defense policy package.

The Senate’s NDAA does not include language establishing a National Cyber Director position. Rather, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) would require “the  Secretary  of  Defense,  in  coordination  with  the Secretary  of  Homeland  Security,  shall  seek  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  an  independent  organization  with  relevant expertise in cyber policy and governmental organization  to  conduct  and  complete  an  assessment  of  the  feasibility and advisability of establishing a National Cyber Director.” It is possible that CSC co-chair Senator Angus King (I-ME) succeeds in getting this recommendation included in the Senate’s FY 2021 NDAA when the body continues with debate next week.

Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) stated

Cyberattacks are a critical, complex, prevalent, and growing threat to the nation’s safety and economic security, touching nearly every aspect of our lives. This assessment was upheld by recent findings from the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which was established by the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act to review the state of our cybersecurity posture and develop bipartisan solutions for defending America against cyberthreats.  This commission of Congressional, Executive Branch, and private sector cybersecurity leaders sounded the alarm that, in addition to millions of intrusions that disrupt operations in America on a daily basis, we remain vulnerable to catastrophic attacks on critical infrastructure and economic systems that could cause widespread damage and death.

Maloney noted “[a] number of the commission’s recommendations fall within the legislative jurisdiction of this Committee…[and] [t]his includes one that has sparked a high level of interest on both sides of the aisle—the recommendation for a centralized cybersecurity position at the White House to develop and streamline the federal government’s strategy, coordination, and response to cyberthreats.” She said that “[t]his role was first formalized during the George W. Bush Administration, and then elevated and expanded during the Obama Administration…[b]ut in 2018, then-National Security Adviser John Bolton eliminated the role, reportedly to cut “another layer of bureaucracy.”

Maloney said that “we will review H.R. 7331, which would implement the Commission’s recommendation to establish a National Cyber Director in the Executive Office of the President.” She said that “[t]his new position would restore that cyber coordination and planning function at the White House…[and] [i]n addition, for the first time, it would be backed with resources and statutory authority to lead strategic planning efforts, review cybersecurity budgets, and coordinate national incident response.” Maloney stated “[a] challenge as complex and pervasive as cybersecurity requires that our government be strategic, organized, and ready…[and] Democrats and Republicans agree we need a National Cyber Director to ensure we are fully prepared for, and coordinated in, our response to cyberattacks as our nation fights this silent war.” She explained “[o]ur mission today is to gain a detailed understanding of the threats we face, and to thoroughly examine H.R. 7331 as the vehicle for preparing our country against those threats.”

Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) said the federal cyber domain is dispersed with varying jurisdictions and expertise among agencies organized to fight cyber-crime, defend national security, and support the private sector’s critical cyber infrastructure. He noted the increasingly reliance in the US on technology and growing inter-connected nature of the American economy. Comer said foreign actors, terrorist groups, domestic agitators, and criminal enterprises all have a vested interest in exploiting US networks. Comer said the remote operations of the pandemic have created new cyber vulnerabilities that malicious actors are taking advantage of. He added the same threats face private sector and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. Comer stressed that fostering relationships across the private sector and state and local partners, vital cyber threat information can be shared that helps secure critical infrastructure.

Comer noted the witnesses have vast experience in combatting cyber threats from nations like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that has historically hacked into agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, stolen intellectual property, and paid professors and researchers for research and development information. He stated he would welcome the opportunity to work with Democrats to hold the PRC accountable for these bad acts as well as their deceptive tactics over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comer said the present hearing would, instead, examine a proposal to create a National Cyber Director. He stressed that Members have a duty to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and not create more bureaucracy. Comer commended the Trump’s Administration’s performance in fending off threats to medical and health facilities and to teleworkers during the pandemic.

Comer asked whether it is truly necessary to establish a new position to coordinate cybersecurity, and, if so, would this official actually have the authority necessary to execute her responsibilities. Moreover, will other stakeholders fall in line and work in harmony, he asked. Comer said it is already he case the multiple federal agencies have cybersecurity jurisdiction and wondered whether another official would help the US government’s cyber posture. He expressed his concern that the bill may create a duplicative, bureaucratic layer of government that will hinder future responses to cyber-attacks.

Representatives and CSC Members James Langevin (D-RI) and Mike Gallagher (R-WI) claimed

First and foremost, the Executive Branch must establish a National Cyber Director to centralize and coordinate the cybersecurity mission at the national level. The National Cyber Director would work among Federal departments and agencies to bring coherence in both in the development of cybersecurity policy and strategy and in its execution. The position would provide clear leadership in the White House and signal cybersecurity is an enduring priority in U.S. national security strategy.

Langevin and Gallagher stated “[l]ooking at the history and the current structure of the Executive Branch, four clear institutional challenges emerge:

  • First, the Federal government lacks consistent, institutionalized leadership in the White House on cybersecurity strategy and policy.
  • Second, due to the absence of a consistent advocate, cybersecurity is inconsistently prioritized in the context of national security.
  • Third, the United States lacks a coordinated, cohesive, and clear strategic vision for cyber.
  • Fourth, the lack of centralized Executive Branch leadership complicates and prevents effective congressional oversight. In the March 2020 Commission report, the Commission recognized the need for a single individual at the highest level in the Federal government to take on these responsibilities.

Langevin and Gallagher explained

On the issue of whether to recommend the creation of new Executive Branch structures, or strengthen the existing structures, the Commission explored several different options. These models included the creation of a new cabinet department for cyber led by a Secretary, an independent agency for cyber led by a Director reporting to an existing cabinet department, an equivalent to a Homeland Security Advisor for cyber within the National Security Council, or a new office within the White House Executive Office of the President (EOP) led by a Director. Ultimately, the Commission decided that the Federal government would be better served by strengthening existing department and agency efforts in cybersecurity, including strengthening CISA and Sector-Specific Agencies, rather than the creation of a new department. While the creation of a new cabinet department or independent agency would give the position gravitas, the Commission recognized the protracted development of a new department would prevent, or even eliminate, much-needed near-term progress.

Cyber Threat Alliance President and Chief Executive Officer Michael Daniel claimed “we have reached the point where making more than incremental progress will prove difficult unless we address at least four impediments:

  • First, cybersecurity’s cross-cutting nature does not fit with the US government’s bureaucratic structure, making the issue difficult to deal with during policy development. 
  • Second, agencies are not incentivized to sustain the degree of coordination required for effective cybersecurity over the long term. 
  • Third, a lack of central coordination hinders effective incident response actions. 
  • Fourth, cybersecurity’s complexity and unusual nature make it tough for the President and other senior leaders to tackle without access to expertise. 

Daniel stated “[a]ddressing these impediments would be challenging under normal circumstances, but this Administration has chosen to take a step backward by eliminating the cybersecurity coordinator position at the White House, which makes it even harder.” He said that “[c]learly, no single policy action will solve these problems…[and] [t]hey are too complicated for a one-shot solution.” Daniel said “[t]hat said, creating a position like a National Cyber Director along the lines the Cyberspace Solarium Commission recommends or that Representative Langevin has proposed is a necessary part of the solution.”

Daniel asserted

  • Cybersecurity is a strategic, national level problem that defies easy categorization.  Cyberspace and the Internet are permanent features of our society, economy, public safety, and national security.  We will not “solve” our cybersecurity problems; cyber threats are now a permanent feature in society and international relations.  Instead, we will manage and mitigate the threat.  Thus, we need a strategic level leader focused on this problem with a government-wide perspective.  Moreover, we will need a national cyber director for the long-term. 
  • The EOP is the only part of the executive branch with a sufficiently broad scope to look across all the different aspects of cybersecurity.  It is the only part of the executive branch that can overcome the “you’re not the boss of me” effect and incentivize agencies to engage in regular, sustained, and intense coordination. It is the logical place to organize a cyber crisis response because it can serve as a neutral, inter-agency hub and activate resources across the entire Federal government. Finally, it is the primary organization for direct Presidential advisors.

Daniel said that “[a]s Congress debates this issue, I would urge it to consider certain parameters in crafting the position: The NCD Office should be big enough to run effective processes, but not so big that it tries to be operational.” He claimed “[i]f we want the office to succeed, then it cannot be so small that the staff do not have time to do anything right…[and] [o]n the other hand, it should not be so large that its staff are tempted to try to run operations directly.” Daniel stated that “[t]he NCD Office should integrate tightly with OMB’s budget process and NSC’s policy process, otherwise it will be irrelevant.”

Daniel stated

  • The NCD Office should have insight into and a policy oversight role for all Federal government cyber functions, including military, intelligence, or law enforcement activities; this insight must extend to offensive cyber operations. We cannot exclude those activities from the NCD’s purview and expect the position to succeed. For the record, I strongly support the independence of indictment and prosecutorial decisions from the White House, but that separation does not mean the NCD should not understand what law enforcement operations are occurring or influence our strategic level policy toward cybercrime. If the NCD only has oversight and coordination roles for network defense activities and working with the private sector, then the position would largely duplicate the CISA director, which we do not need.
  • NCD staff should not participate in policy execution. Law enforcement agencies investigates and prosecutes crime, intelligence agencies collect information, the military conducts offensive cyber operations, and the sector specific agencies work with their industries. Policy execution should remain the domain of the departments and agencies.
  • The office will need a clear relationship with the Federal Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). This existing office has worked hard to improve the security of Federal networks. The NCD’s office will need to work closely with the Federal CISO to ensure that Federal agencies are following the general guidance and advice the government gives the private sector. We must walk our talk.

Tenable Chairman and CEO Amit Yoran stated

Beyond the authorities already included in H.R. 7331, I recommend additional authorities for the National Cyber Director that would improve the nation’s cybersecurity risk management for both the public and private sectors. These additional authorities include developing a national encryption policy, managing the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP), coordinating with regulatory entities, driving cybersecurity workforce development, and leading all international cybersecurity efforts, to include the development of international cyber strategies and international engagement.

Yoran added that

The Cyberspace Solarium Report also included recommendations on how to further strengthen the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in order to ensure the national resilience of critical infrastructure, promote a more secure cyber ecosystem and serve as the central civilian authority to support federal, state, local and private sector cybersecurity efforts. CISA has established information sharing capabilities across the government, provides technical assistance to cybersecurity operators in the public and private sectors, and engages stakeholders both inside and outside the federal government. However, CISA’s role has clear limitations:

  • CISA’s convening power is not widely understood or consistently recognized.
  • CISA does not have jurisdiction over law enforcement, the Department of Defense or federal intelligence agencies, which are all critical pieces of a unified approach to U.S. cyber defense, nor are these organizations required to collaborate and share their activities with CISA.
  • CISA does not have the budget or the analytic capacity to assess, plan for and lead a unified effort to mitigate national systemic cyber risk.

Yoran said that “[t]he creation of the National Cybersecurity Director role should be done in conjunction with efforts to empower and appropriately resource CISA as a critical player to improve the nation’s cybersecurity.” He contended “[t]o strengthen CISA, Congress should elevate the Director position as recommended by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission and provide additional funding and program support that will enable the organization to enhance current operations.” Yoran stated that “[a]n expanded budget would also allow CISA to increase funding for the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program in order to meet surge capacity to protect .gov networks, support state and local cybersecurity networks and systems, and expand other programs that support the private sector, including many of the public-private operations that comprise the U.S. critical infrastructure.”

George Mason University’s National Security Institute Founder & Executive Director Jamil Jaffer stated

  • Given the general agreement that such [cyber] coordination is advisable, and indeed, necessary, one needs wonder why the Commission’s approach might be controversial.  The first and most obvious issue that would likely trouble any White House—regardless of political party and relationship with Congress—is the idea of having yet another Senate-confirmed appointee in the White House Office. 
  • The challenge, of course, with a National Cyber Director, particularly as it relates to a position in the White House Office and as described in H.R. 7331, is that this individual would have responsibilities that are generally understood by Presidents to be squarely in their control, namely matters related to the execution of the President’s textual Commander-in-Chief responsibilities. And while Congress may certainly argue that it has a number of textual commitments in this area also, like the declaration of war authority and the provisioning of the armed forces, the reality is that Presidents have long taken the view that matters of national security decisionmaking, particularly in the White House, are firmly committed to their discretion.  Thus, it is likely that any President, regardless of party or relationship with Congress, would be strongly opposed to Senate-confirmation of such an individual and, if such confirmation was ultimately required, it may actually undermine rather than buttress the individual position’s influence and role within the White House.
  • Moreover, making such a position Senate-confirmed essentially seeks to elevate it to an Assistant to the President role, namely a principal officer inside the White House Office. The challenge with doing so, of course, is that the vast majority of issues such an individual would deal with likely also fall squarely within the ambit of the existing responsibilities of the Assistant to the President for National Security (i.e., the National Security Advisor). 
  • The legislation clearly envisions the former approach—that is, direct advice to the President—which could very well create its own set of coordination and integration challenges within the White House and with the interagency. This challenge is enhanced, in particular, when it comes to areas of clear overlap between existing White House officials like the National Security Advisor (e.g., in the case of offensive and defensive cyber operations), as well as the Director of OMB (e.g., in the case of budgetary authority). Where the situation becomes even more problematic, however, is where the NCD’s assigned authorities appear to directly conflict with the authorities of another cabinet-level official. 
  • Finally, the size of the office likewise presents its own challenges.  While it is true that the USTR has an office of over 200 individuals and OMB has nearly 500, even at 75 authorized individuals, when one adds in the authority for other outside experts, consultants, and other government agency personnel in support, this number is likely to be viewed as too high for the mission.  This is particularly the case given that such an office would be roughly1/3 the size of the entire National Security Council staff, which itself is currently seen as fairly bloated (even after the Trump-directed staff reductions in 2019)

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Hearing On National Cyber Director Act To Be Held This Week

Members of a Congressional cybersecurity commission introduce legislation to establish a statutory cyber position in the White House after neither NDAA has this policy change.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

This week, the House Oversight and Reform Committee is holding a hearing to examine the “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331), a bill to implement one of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s key recommendations.

When it became clear that neither FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would include a CSC to create a statutory position in the White House to coordinate United States’ (US) cyber policy, some CSC members and other key stakeholders introduced a bill to effectuate the recommendation that the US needs a National Cyber Director. This new position would be along the lines of a position created during the Obama Administration (i.e. White House Cybersecurity Coordinator) that was eliminated by former National Security Advisor John Bolton in 2018. However, this position would have a statutory basis and authority, which would institutionalize the position in this and future Administrations.

The bill was sponsored by CSC Member Representative James Langevin (D-RI) and cosponsored by CSC co-chair Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the Homeland Security Committee’s Cybersecurity, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Member John Katko (R-NY), and Representatives C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Will Hurd (R-TX). Langevin has been advocating for this concept for a decade, beginning with the introduction of “Executive Cyberspace Authorities Act of 2010” (H.R.5247) that would have created a National Cyberspace Office inside the Executive Office of the President.

In terms of strategy for enactment, the sponsors could try to offer the bill as an amendment to either NDAA during floor consideration, but, depending on the procedural approach to consideration in either chamber, they may not be able to actually get a vote. Moreover, the chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees who typically manage the bills on the floor may successfully argue this is an idea that is premature and should be studied. This sort of argument is often persuasive since these Members are usually respected for their expertise. Alternatively, the sponsors may try to pass the bill as a standalone measure.

The “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331) would establish an Office National Cyber Director (NCD) in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) headed by a Senate-confirmed NCD, much like some of the other offices in the EOP like the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Immediately beneath the NCD would be two new officials: Deputy National Cyber Director for Strategy, Capabilities, and Budget and Deputy National Cyber Director for Plans and Operations whose responsibilities are presumably spelled out in their titles for the bill does not explain on their portfolios. The NCD would be added to the statute establishing the National Security Council (NSC), and would be specifically named as an adviser the President may or may not invite to participate in NSC meetings and deliberations.

In terms of duties, the NCD would serve “as the principal advisor to the President on cybersecurity strategy and policy” “[s]ubject to the authority, direction, and control of the President.” This new official would coordinate the drafting and implementation of the United States’ National Cyber Strategy in consultation with existing stakeholders like OMB, the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others. The NCD would also be empowered to review agency budget submissions and be required to certify they are aligned with the National Cyber Strategy. The new Director would also be added to the stakeholders that address information security across federal agencies. The NCD would “lead joint interagency planning for the Federal Government’s integrated response to cyberattacks and cyber campaigns of significant consequence,” which would be defensive operations. It appears the NCD would not be the lead US official for offensive cyber-attacks, which appears to be the province of the head of Cyber Command, currently General Paul Nakasone.  However, there are provisions that seem to suggest the National Cyber Director could be added to the inter-agency process of determining whether and when the US will launch cyber-attacks. However, the CSC envisioned the NCD not interfering with the current process for offensive operations: “The NCD will coordinate interagency efforts to defend against adversary cyber operations against domestic U.S. interests; this will not impinge on DoD responsibility for Title 10 activities, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) responsibility for Title 50 activities, or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) responsibility for counterintelligence activities, but the NCD would be kept fully apprised of those activities.”

The Senate’s “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) would require “the  Secretary  of  Defense,  in  coordination  with  the Secretary  of  Homeland  Security,  shall  seek  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  an  independent  organization  with  relevant expertise in cyber policy and governmental organization  to  conduct  and  complete  an  assessment  of  the  feasibility and advisability of establishing a National Cyber Director.” The text of the House’s NDAA released thus far does not address the CSC’s recommendation for the establishment of an NCD.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Image by cristianrodri17 from Pixabay

Senate Consideration of NDAA Continues

Slowly, the Senate works on its NDAA by adding a number of amendments including a few standalone technology bills. However, an election security bill was stripped out of the FY 2021 Intelligence Authorization before it was added to the NDAA.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

The Senate continued its consideration of the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) this week before recessing for the 4 July holiday. Work will continue later this month on the massive authorization package that sets annual policy for the Department of Defense (DOD) and related agencies. However, before leaving Washington, DC, the Senate did deal with some of the amendments offered for adoption by adding a number en bloc, some of which pertain to technology policy and funding.

The following amendments were adopted on 2 July 3, 2020 en bloc by unanimous consent:

  • The Department of Homeland of Security “shall produce a report on the state of digital content forgery technology” within one year of enactment and then every five years
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, with appropriate representatives of the Armed Forces, shall brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the feasibility and the current status of assigning members of the Armed Forces on active duty to the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) of the Department of Defense.”
  • “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ability of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to fulfill–
    • the missions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and
    • the recommendations detailed in the report issued by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission”
  • The “Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act” (DIGIT Act) (S.1611) that would require the Department of Commerce to “convene a working group of Federal stakeholders for the purpose of providing recommendations and a report to Congress relating to the aspects of the Internet of Things.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, shall leverage, to the maximum extent practicable, the capabilities of United States industry, including through the use of commercial geospatial-intelligence services and acquisition of commercial satellite imagery.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish a pilot program to explore the use of consumption-based solutions to address software-intensive warfighting capability” per a re commendation made by the Section 809 Panel.
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense shall complete a study on the cyberexploitation of the personal  information and accounts of members of the Armed Forces and their families.”
  • A modified version of the “Utilizing Strategic Allied (USA) Telecommunications Act” (S.3189) that “would reassert U.S. and Western leadership by encouraging competition with Huawei that capitalizes on U.S. software advantages, accelerating development of an open-architecture model (known as O-RAN) that would allow for alternative vendors to enter the market for specific network components, rather than having to compete with Huawei end-to-end” according to a press release.

Additionally, a deal was struck to add the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (S.3905) to S.4049 but without a bill included in the package as reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee: the “Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act” (FIRE Act) (S.2242). The sponsor of the FIRE Act, Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA), went to the Senate floor to protest the striking of his bill and to announce his plans to offer it as an amendment and force a vote:

The  committee  voted  14  to  1  to  pass an intel authorization bill that included  the  FIRE  Act,  the  act  that  I  just described, so that if a foreign government interferes or offers you assistance  or  offers  you  dirt,  you  don’t  say  thanks;  you  call  the  FBI.  So  you  can  imagine  my  surprise  and  frustration  when  I  learned  of  a  backroom  deal  to  strip  the  FIRE  Act  out  of  the  Intelligence   Committee’s   legislation   because  of  a  supposed  turf  war  with  another committee. I  am  back  again  today  because  the  security  of  our  elections  cannot  wait.  Let’s  not  hide  behind  process  or  jurisdictional  boundaries.  The  stakes  are  far  too  high  to  continue  the  partisan  blockade  of  election  security  legislation  that  we  have  seen  over  the  last  3  years. If,  behind  closed  doors,  my  Republican  colleagues  want  to  strip  this  legislation  out  of  the  NDAA,  then  I  am  going  to  offer  it  up  as  an  amendment  to  force  an  up-or-down  vote  and  put  every   Member   of   this   body   on   the   record: Are you for election security or are you for allowing foreign entities to interfere  and  offer  assistance  with  no  requirement to report?

Prior to its inclusion in the FY 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act, Warner had asked unanimous consent to take up the FIRE Act multiple times but was met with Republican objections each time. And there are other election security bills Republicans have continued to block, including:

  • The “Duty To Report Act” (S.1247)
  • The “Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act” (S.890)
  • The “Securing America’s Federal Elections Act” (SAFE Act) (H.R.2722)
  • The “Secure Elections Act of 2019” (S.1540)

Yet, the Senate has taken up and passed two election-related bills addressing facets of the cybersecurity challenges. On July 17, the Senate passed the “Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act” (S. 1321) by unanimous consent that would “make it a federal crime to hack any voting systems used in a federal election” according to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website. In June the Senate also passed the “Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes (DETER) Act” (S. 1328) that “will make “improper interference in U.S. elections” a violation of U.S. immigration law, and violators would be barred from obtaining a visa to enter the United States. The House has yet to act on these bills.

When the Senate returns to the bill on 20 July, a number of amendments will be pending, including one to establish semiconductor manufacturing grants.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

NDAA Markup Finishes In House

The House’s NDAA was moved out of committee and it would alter a range of technology programs and initiatives at the Pentagon. The bill may be considered by the full House later this month.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

The House Armed Services Committee marked up and reported out the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (NDAA) (H.R.6395), three weeks after the Senate Armed Services Committee did the same with its NDAA. The two packages authorize very similar top-line funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD defense programs (most of which are the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons programs) that largely meets the Trump Administration’s overall funding request of roughly $731 billion, including $69 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). And, the annual authorization package is full of technology provisions that affect the DOD, related agencies, private sector contractors, and other nations. The House may take up H.R.6395 this month, which will likely result in more changes being made to the package.

Chair Adam Smith (D-WA) released his Mark (i.e. the full text of his proposed FY 2021 NDAA that served as the base text for the markup). This bill also added sections that were not included in the subcommittee marks, and with respect to cyber-policy, the Chair’s Mark added two provisions:

  • Section 1622—Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • This section would modify section 1652 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to update the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s membership. Additionally, this section would permit the organization to extend further for the purposes of providing regular updates to the legislative and executive branches on the implementation of the Commission’s findings. 
  • Section 1624—Responsibility for the Sector Risk Management Agency Function of the Department of Defense
    • This section would assign full responsibility for certification, coordination, harmonization, and deconfliction of the various efforts, initiatives, and programs that the Department of Defense manages in the furtherance of its responsibilities as the Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) for the Defense Industrial Base to the Principal Cyber Advisor. Presently, the Department is the only SSA that has not unified its various physical and cybersecurity efforts under one organization. For the purposes of carrying out its SSA mission, the Principal Cyber Advisor will be tasked with the management of all functions associated with SSAs under Presidential Policy Directive-21.

The Chair’s Mark has a number of cybersecurity provisions in the Committee Report:

  • [T]he committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2021, regarding the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Consistent with draft regulation issued in November 2019, and the anticipated August 2020 regulation related to this statute, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2020, on the implementation status of the full requirements in section 889 of the FY 2019 NDAA that effectively bans Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, or Dahua systems or equipment from DOD and federal government systems and networks.

Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee’s Mark contains the following Committee Report language:

  • [T]he committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31, 2021, on the status of the Department’s implementation of the [21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) (P.L. 115-336)] across the defense enterprise.
  • The committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, in coordination with chief information officers of the military services, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 1, 2021, on the processes in place for asset discovery and management of hardware and software products.
  • [T]he committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2021, to examine the issue of internet architecture security.

The Committee adopted hundreds of amendments during its hours long markup, some of which pertained to defense technology issues. The Committee wrote this summary of selected provisions adopted in this package in the jurisdiction of the Intelligence & Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee offered by a range of Members:

  • Amends Sec. 1286 of the FY 2019 NDAA by adding to the requirements a publication deadline and public release of a list of Chinese and Russian academic institutions with a history of improper technology transfer and other malign behavior.
  • Directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than 1 December 2020, on the information environment segmentation methodology framework.
  • Requires a GAO study of DOD’s Cyber vulnerability assessment efforts.
  • Requires DOD to submit a report to Congress on DOD components cyber hygiene practices and directs the GAO to review that report and brief the Committees on its findings.
  • To provide a briefing to HASC on improving the cybersecurity of disadvantaged small businesses in the defense industrial base.
  • National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) recommendations including
    • “a  steering  committee  on  emerging  technology  and  national  security  threats;”
    • “the  Secretary  of  Defense  shall  develop  and  implement  a  program  to  provide  covered  human  resources  personnel  with  training  in  the  fields  of  software  development,  data  science,  and  artificial  intelligence,  as  such  fields  related  to  the  duties  of  such  personnel;”
    • “a  pilot  program  under which applicants for technical positions within the Department  of  Defense  will  be  evaluated,  in  part,  based  on  electronic  portfolios  of  the  applicant’s  work;”
  • Briefing on use of Artificial Intelligence to analyze beneficial ownership of defense contractors
  • Establishes a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative
  • GAO Study and Report on Electronic Continuity of Operations on the Department of Defense
  • Package of recommendations on artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), including:
    • a program under which qualified professors and students may be employed on a part-time or term basis in an organization of the Defense science and technology enterprise for the purpose of conducting a research project
    • an advisory panel on microelectronics leadership and competitiveness
    • the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center…shall conduct an assessment to determine whether the Department of Defense has the ability to ensure that any artificial intelligence technology acquired by the Department is ethically and responsibly developed.
  • Amending report language on “Ties between Russia and China” to include assessment on defense cooperation and coordination between Russia and China
  • Requires a report on the applicability of using automated technologies related to computer aided manufacturing software and similar manufacturing technologies to address repair part obsolesce issues and part obsolesce issues and parts shortages across the organic industrial base.
  • To require a plan on spectrum information technology modernization and a program to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities in the military’s telecommunications infrastructure
  • The DOD lacks a similar comprehensive understanding of the Internet-connected assets and attack surface across the DOD enterprise. Amends existing DRL to require a briefing on the current and planned capabilities and concept of operations for Internet operations management.

The Committee also offered summaries of the following provisions adopted across three amendments:

  • Chair’s Mark En Bloc #1
    • Report on Supply Chain Security Cooperation with Taiwan
    • Directs the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission to brief the committee on any plans, opportunities, and/or challenges the Commission has for sharing its expertise and cooperation with similar organizations among U.S. partners and allies
    • Encourages the Secretary of Defense to take into account the security risks, including threats to operational and information security, of 5G and 6G telecommunications networks in all future overseas stationing decisions
  • Chair’s Mark En Bloc #2
    • Cyber Threat Information Collaboration Environment (JCE)
    • Establishment of the Integrated Cyber Center
    • Cybersecurity Threat Hunting and Sensing, Discovery, and Mitigation
    • The  DOD “shall  establish  a  threat  intelligence  program  to  share  with  and  obtain  from  the  defense  industrial  base  information  and  intelligence  on  threats  to  national  security” that would include cybersecurity incident reporting for defense contractors
    • Requires a study and recommendations from NIST on China’s influence in international standards setting bodies for emerging tech.
    • Requirement to Buy Certain Satellite Component from National Technology and Industrial Base
    • Sense of Congress on the intent and implementation of the Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act pertaining to the prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment
    • Extends and modernizes required reporting by the Department of Defense on Chinese Communist Party military companies operating in the United States
  • Chair’s Mark En Bloc #3
    • DRL requiring a briefing from USD(A&S) on how DOD and the CMMC-AB plan to mitigate potential organizational conflicts of interest [between] contractors and third-party assessment organizations performing CMMC certifications
    • To provide assistance to small manufacturers in the defense industrial supply chain with improving cybersecurity
    • GAO Report on GSA e-commerce Portal Data Usage and Competition

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

House Armed Services Begins Its Mark Up of NDAA; Senate Files Its NDAA

The House and Senate’s NDAAs are full of cyber-related language, including a number of CSC recommendations.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

Two weeks after the Senate Armed Services Committees marked up its FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the House Armed Services Committee began marking up its NDAA. This annual legislation sets cybersecurity and technology policy and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its myriad agencies that often later public and private sector policy directly or indirectly. The Senate also began consideration of its bill this week, and the House could follow suit on its package next month.

On 22 June, the Intelligence and Emerging Threats & Capabilities Subcommittee met and marked up their portion of the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395), but not all the bill text was released before the hearing. Nevertheless, in the summary of legislative language provided along with selected bill text, the subcommittee explained some of the cybersecurity provisions in the FY 2021 NDAA:

  • Section 1621—Cyber Mission Forces and Cyberspace Operations Forces
    • This section would amend section 238 of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the need for consolidated budget displays for both the cyber mission forces, as well as the newly created cyber operations forces. Additionally, this would amend an existing requirement for the cyber and information technology budgets to be delivered to Congress in print and electronically, not later than 5 days after the release of the President’s budget request.
  • Section 1623—Tailored Cyberspace Operations Organizations
    • This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Chief of Naval Operations, to produce a study on the Navy Cyber Warfare Development Group, a small niche organization aligned to the Navy’s service cyber component. This section also would authorize other military services and U.S. Special Operations Command to create counterpart organizations to Navy Cyber Warfare Development Group.
  • Section 1625—Department of Defense Cyber Workforce Efforts
    • This section would direct the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer to:
      • study and expand the model used at the National Security Agency(NSA) that authorizes NSA employees to use up to 140 hours of paid time toward NSA cyber education efforts in local communities. This would explicitly authorize select Department of Defense civilians who are part of the Cyber Excepted Service to utilize paid time toward wider national efforts aimed at addressing the cyber workforce shortage;
      • study and report, in conjunction with the military services, to the congressional defense committees on how the Training With Industry program can be strengthened and better utilized by the services; and
      • study the synchronization between NSA GenCyber program and the Centers for Academic Excellence and report to the congressional defense committees on how the two programs can be better integrated and harmonized.
  • Section 1626—Reporting Requirements for Cross Domain Compromises and Exemptions to Policies for Information Technology
    • This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to report monthly to the congressional defense committees on all cross domain compromises within the Department of Defense Information Network. Additionally, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense to report biannually to the congressional defense committees on all current exemptions to information technology policies. The intent is to establish a baseline for legislative oversight on areas where the Department of Defense has accepted risk to its networks and systems.
  • Section 1627—Assessing Private-Public Collaboration in Cybersecurity
    • This section would assess the impact of the current Pathfinder initiatives, prospects for making existing Pathfinder pilots more robust, and whether and how to expand Pathfinder or similar models of public-private collaboration to other critical infrastructure sectors, particularly systemically important critical infrastructure. Developing institutional support for Pathfinder-type initiatives not only creates opportunities for increased collaboration across critical sectors, as prioritized by Federal departments and agencies, but will also buttress and accelerate nascent efforts and increase their chances of success.
  • Section 1628—Cyber Capabilities and Interoperability of the National Guard
    • This section would direct the Department of Defense to update existing policies to consider National Guard activities that could be performed and reimbursed under title 32, United States Code.
  • Section 1629—Evaluation of Non-Traditional Cyber Support to the Department of Defense
    • This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility and need for a cyber reserve force, the composition of a reserve force, and the structure of a reserve force (e.g., a retainer model, a non-traditional reserve, auxiliary model).

The full House Armed Services Committee will markup the entire bill on 1 July, and in advance of this hearing the full text of the bill (aka the Chair’s Mark) will likely be released. Traditionally, this markup takes the better part of a day. It is likely cybersecurity and technology matters will be discussed and details in the bill amended.

The “Senate Armed Services Committee released its text for the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049), and the Senate began consideration of the bill this week, with the invocation of cloture on the motion to proceed on 25 June by a 90-7 vote. The Committee also released the Committee Report to accompany S.4049, which summarizes the myriad cybersecurity and technology provisions, most of which are directed to the DOD, its contractors and suppliers.

The cybersecurity provisions in S.4049 would change, alter, or establish a range of programs and operations. The bill would modify the statutory duties of Department of Defense’s Principal Cyber Advisor to require that the person chosen for this role is a civilian at the Pentagon who holds a position requiring Senate confirmation. The DOD would need to develop and implement a framework for forward hunt operations (i.e. offensive cyber operations) to address some of the issues the committee’s oversight turned up. The focus on this exercise would be to get a better understanding on the utility and life span of intelligence gained through such operations. The Pentagon’s reporting duties after executing an offensive or defensive cyber operation would be expanded to include nations and entities with whom the United States is not at war. The Committee expanded the DOD’s required briefings on cyber operations, expressing frustration with the Department’s “unwillingness to keep the committee apprised of cyber operations conducted to gain access to adversary systems, including those conducted pursuant to standing military plans against military targets.”

There is language mandating that the DOD begin the process of harmonizing the Pentagon’s cyber capabilities and those provided by private sector contractors, much of which overlaps in the view of the committee. Cyber Command would receive expanded but necessarily acquisition authority as the service branches are to remain the entities undertaking large procurements. The Principal Cyber Advisor and head of Cyber Command would need to assess how well the DOD manages inter-agency conflict in the Pentagon and among Intelligence Community agencies in managing the process by which cyber operations are designed and executed, suggesting there is significant internal friction among the stakeholders. The DOD would need to conduct a pilot on the feasibility of adopting and using a commercial practice of speed-based cybersecurity metrics. The Pentagon would also need to better integrate its data collection and data analysis regarding potentially malicious or illegal activities by DOD employees and contractors (i.e. so-called insider threat).

The DOD would need “to develop a comprehensive plan, by February 1, 2021, for the deployment of commercial-off-the-shelf solutions on supplier networks to monitor the public-facing Internet attack surface of members of the defense industrial base (DIB)” that is intended to supplement the DOD’s new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification and other DOD efforts to shore up the cybersecurity of its contractors. The bill would grant a DOD request to receive the authority to immediately react and respond to reported threats and penetrations to “operationally critical” DOD contractors’ systems and networks. The DOD would need “to conduct a baseline review of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) activity to determine whether the initiative should continue, but as a program of record, or should be replaced by an improved design and modern technology.” The DOD would also receive limited flexibility to use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) “for cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects.” The committee also conditioned the availability of certain Office of the Secretary of Defense travel on fulfilling a requirement in the current year’s NDAA to submit “a report for the structuring and manning of information operations capabilities and forces” in the DOD, develop “a strategy for operations in the information environment” and to “conduct an information operations posture review.”

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) would have its mandate extended so it could monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of its 75 recommendations made in March 2020. The bill includes a number of CSC recommendations, including:

  • Adding “a force structure assessment of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Operations Forces to future cyber posture reviews.”
  • “a report to the congressional defense committees, detailing the actions that the Secretary will undertake to ensure that the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, has enhanced authority, direction, and control of the Cyber Operations Forces and of the equipment budget that enables Cyber Operations Forces’ operations and readiness, beginning with fiscal year 2024 budget request.”
  • Assessing “options for establishing a cyber reserve force.”
  • A comprehensive plan for “[e]nsuring cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control system”
  • Requiring “the Secretary of Defense to establish policies and requirements for each major weapon system, and the priority critical infrastructure essential to the proper functioning of major weapon systems in broader mission areas, to be re-assessed for cyber vulnerabilities.”
  • Mandating that the Secretary of Defense “establish a threat intelligence sharing program to share threat intelligence with and obtain threat intelligence from the defense industrial base.”
  • Requiring the Pentagon “to conduct an assessment of the adequacy of threat hunting elements of the Cyber Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program and the need for continuous threat monitoring operations.”
  • Addressing “the risks to National Security Systems (NSSs) posed by quantum computing by requiring the Secretary of Defense to: (1) Complete an assessment of current and potential threats to critical NSSs and the standards used for quantum-resistant cryptography; and (2) Provide recommendations for research and development activities to secure NSSs.”
  • Study the feasibility of establishment of a National Cyber Director.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Photo by Markus Spiske from Pexels

Senate Armed Services Marks Up FY 2021 NDAA

Per usual, the NDAA contains a number of technology related provisions, including a some of the CSC’s recommendations. The People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation continue to receive attention.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

This week, legislative work began on the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate Armed Services Committee conducted markups at the subcommittee and committee level, almost of which were in closed settings, and announced a finished bill that has not yet been made available per committee tradition. However, as in years past, a summary of the NDAA has been released that provides a high level overview of the bill, including its cybersecurity and technology related provisions. Bill text will not likely be released before the bill comes to the Senate floor.

Most notably, a number of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) recommendations were apparently included in the bill, an outcome the four CSC Members who also serve in Congress were working towards; Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Angus King (I-ME) served on the CSC and are also on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The CSC’s highest profile recommendation was not entirely accepted, however. The CSC had called for a National Cyber Director its final report that would be “be the President’s principal advisor for cybersecurity-related issues, as well as lead national-level coordination of cybersecurity strategy and policy, both within government and with the private sector.” However, the FY 2021 NDAA merely uses an old strategy on possibly controversial changes: a study would be conducted on a National Cyber Director. Nevertheless, the CSC’s mandate would be extended another 16 months if this legislation is enacted, giving the body more time to work to see this and other recommendations possibly come to fruition.

All of the recommendations in the FY 2021 NDAA are those within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committees, suggesting the non-defense cybersecurity recommendations will need to be enacted by the various committees of jurisdiction. Ironically, this is the very issue the CSC addressed in its recommendation that Congress establish “House Permanent Select and Senate Select Committees on Cybersecurity.” However, it is a rare occurrence for Congress to redraw committee jurisdictions in such a significant way, and the Homeland Security Committees were created after the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. And yet, it is not uncommon for legislation that pertains mostly to civilian agencies and affairs to get added to the NDAA. For example, the “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform” (FITARA) (P.L. 113-291) was enacted as part of the FY 2013 NDAA.

The Committee explained that the NDAA includes 11 of the CSC’s recommendations:

  • A review of National Guard response to cyberattacks,
  • Adding a force structure assessment in the quadrennial cyber posture review,
  • A report on enabling Cyber Command authorities, direction, and control of Cyber Operations Forces-related budgets, ensuring flexibility and agility to control acquisition,
  • An evaluation of cyber reserve force options, which could provide capable surge capability and enable DOD to draw on cyber talent in the department sector,
  • Improving cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control systems,
  • A modification to fortify the Strategic Cybersecurity program and further cyber vulnerability assessment of weapons systems,
  • A Defense Industrial Base threat intelligence sharing program to support companies’ ability to defend themselves,
  • An assessment of the risk posed by quantum computing to national security systems,
  • An extension of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission for tracking and facilitating the implementation of its recommendations for 16 months,
  • An independent assessment on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a National Cyber Director.

The House Armed Services Committee will begin marking up its FY 2021 NDAA later this month with a full committee markup scheduled for 1 July. It is very likely CSC recommendations make it into this bill, and so it will be a matter of final negotiations to determine which recommendations are part of the bill, which is seen as must-pass on Capitol Hill. Moreover, CSC recommendations could get folded into appropriations bills for FY 2021, which is often one of the last matters Congress addresses before recessing for the winter holidays.

The Committee highlighted other cybersecurity and cyberspace provisions:

  • Updates the responsibilities of the Principal Cyber Advisor, a key driver of the Department’s development and implementation of its 2018 cyber strategy, by increasing the integration and coordination responsibilities of that office to ensure that DOD’s cyber policies are coherent, cohesive, and meet needs,
  • Improves transparency and requires DOD to provide more regular updates on cyber operations to Congress,
  • Requires pilot programs, demonstrations, and/or plans for: speed-based cybersecurity capability metrics to measure DOD performance and effectiveness; interoperability and automated orchestration of cybersecurity systems (increased by $10 million above the President’s request); addressing network timing and address inconsistencies; and integration of user activity monitoring and cybersecurity systems,
  • Requires an assessment of gaps between Cyber Mission Forces and Cybersecurity Service Providers,
  • Authorizes increased funding ($25 million for Air Force Operation and Maintenance and $5 million for Army Operation and Maintenance) to provide Cyber Mission Forces with more resources to access, operate, and train as required by increased operational demands,
  • Improves cyber readiness and “man, train, and equip” by:
    • Authorizing a pilot program to prepare the National Guard for providing cyber assistance remotely in the case of cyber attacks,
    • Prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from taking any action on the National Defense University’s College of Information and Cyber Space until completing an assessment of educational requirements for military and civilian leaders in this domain,
    • Modifying authority to use Operation and Maintenance funds to allow for rapid creation, testing, and fielding of cyber capabilities to respond more quickly to threats, and
    • Improving the training and retention of highly qualified cyber personnel, including providing Cyber Command with the same hiring authority for technical talent as exists at DARPA, the Strategic Capabilities Office, and the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, and by allowing for pay that is more competitive with commercial industry.

Again, the Committee addressed the threats posed by the DOD having a significant part of its supply chain rooted in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the challenges posed by the nation to US military and national security:

  • The FY21 NDAA takes numerous steps to reshape the Defense Industrial Base as a National Security Innovation Base, expanding its industrial capacity, promoting agility and resiliency, and identifying and mitigating risks associated with reliance on foreign adversaries, while investing in relationships with allies and partners. The shift to a National Security Innovation Base requires acknowledging that a whole-of-government approach is needed, and this bill encourages DOD to study broad factors that shape the industrial base and engage with outside stakeholders and interests. Recognizing that procurement restrictions are very powerful, the bill also ensures DOD is exploring all pathways to expand domestic capacity, including increased research and development. Lastly, the legislation safeguards proprietary technology, intellectual property, and other defense-sensitive data from being infiltrated by the government of China.
  • Further implements recommendations from DOD’s report proceeding from Executive Order 13806 on assessing and strengthening the manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply chain resiliency of the U.S., and updates the framework for modernizing acquisition processes to ensure the integrity of the Defense Industrial Base,
  • Requires analyses of a variety of materials and technology sectors, such as microelectronics, rare earth minerals, medical devices, personal protective equipment and pharmaceutical ingredients, to determine actions to take to address sourcing and industrial capacity,
  • Directs additional steps for certain items, such as microelectronics, printed circuit boards, critical raw materials, and unmanned aircraft systems to mitigate risk of relying on foreign sources for products, materials, components, and manufacturing,
  • Strengthens the National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB) by creating a Regulatory Council and directing DOD to establish a process for admitting new members,
  • Requires assessment of foreign industrial base capabilities and capacity to see how these drive risk to the U.S. from overreliance on China and their economic aggression,
  • Continues to expand the role of small business, extending the authorization of a pilot program to streamline contracting and auditing processes for innovative technology programs and ensuring DOD pays small business contractors quickly,
  • Directs steps to safeguard defense-sensitive U.S. intellectual property and technology from acquisition by China and with post-employment restricts pertaining to China.

The Committee highlighted provisions aimed at the PRC and Russia:

  • Extends the limitation on providing sensitive missile defense information to Russia and on the integration of U.S. missile defense systems into those of China and Russia,
  • Requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the risk to DOD personnel, equipment, and operations due to Huawei 5G architecture in host countries and possible steps for mitigation,
  • Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider 5G and 6G security risks posed by vendors like Huawei and ZTE when making overseas basing decisions,
  • Protects the defense industrial base and supply chain, as well as intellectual property and technology, from disruption, infiltration, or theft by the Government of China (see “Innovation Base”),
  • Fully funds the European Deterrence Initiative and increases funding to support rotational forces in Europe,
  • Requires a report on Russian support to racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups and networks in Europe and the United States that creates or causes growing national security threats, information warfare, and increasing risks to societal stability and democratic institutions,
  • Extends restrictions on military-to-military cooperation with Russia and any activities that would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea,
  • Expresses a sense of the Senate that long-term strategic competition with Russia is a top defense priority that requires sustained investment and enhanced deterrence due to the level of threat posed,

The Committee added

As our strategic competitors develop more and more advanced weapons, equipment, and technology, it’s critical that the United States keep pace through deliberate, knowledge-based development. The FY21 NDAA directs investments and implements policies that will maintain or expand our comparative advantage over China and Russia for key capabilities and technologies. One strategy for accelerating innovation will be through a tailored approach of both subsystem prototypes, including for unmanned surface vessels, and full-scale prototypes, including for hypersonic weapons, based on a detailed understanding of what is necessary to achieve technical and technological maturity.

The bill also

  • Supports the development of fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks by establishing a cross- functional team for 5G wireless networks and designates the DOD Chief Information Officer to lead the team and serve as the senior designated official for related policy, oversight, guidance, and coordination at DOD,
  • Strengthens Science and Technology efforts in emerging technologies, including by requiring: an assessment of U.S. efforts to develop biotechnologies compared to our adversaries; development of Artificial Intelligence use-cases for reform efforts; enhancements to the Quantum Information Science research and development program; and a demonstration of innovative 5G commercial technologies, Encourages DOD to leverage commercially available technology where appropriate, particularly for artificial intelligence,
  • Includes several provisions designed to recruit and retain talent with technology expertise, including requiring a study comparing methods for recruiting and retaining technology researchers used by both the U.S. and Chinese governments and authorizing a pilot program to permit university students and faculty to take on part-time and term employment at DOD labs to work on critical technologies and research activities,

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Congressional Cybersecurity Commission Releases Annex To Final Report

A Congressional cyber panel is adding four recommendations to its comprehensive March report.  

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

On 2 June, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) released an annex to its final report. The CSC was created by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232) to “develop a consensus on a strategic approach to defending the United States in cyberspace against cyber attacks of significant consequences.” In mid-March, the CSC released its final report and made a range of recommendations, some of which were paired with legislative language the CSC has still not yet made available. However, Members of Congress who served on the CSC are working with the Armed Services Committees to get some of this language added to the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). See this issue of the Technology Policy Update for more detail on the CSC’s final report.

Per its grant of statutory authority, the CSC is set to terminate 120 days after the release of its final report, which will be next month. Nonetheless, the CSC has been holding a series of webinars to elucidate or explain various components of the final report, and the Commission began to consider cybersecurity through the lens of the current pandemic for parallels and practical effects. Consequently, the CSC added four new recommendations and renewed its call that recommendations in its final report related to the pandemic – in the view of the Commission – receive renewed attention and ideally action by Congress and the Executive Branch.

The CSC again called for the types of resources and reforms most policymakers have either not shown an appetite for or believe are a few bridges too far. Even though the CSC stated its intention to a “9/11 Commission without the 9/11 event,” it is unlikely such sweeping policy changes will be made in the absence of a crisis or event that fundamentally changes this status quo. Nevertheless, the CSC’s new recommendations are targeted and modest, one of which call for funneling more funds through an existing grant program to bolster private sector/non-profit efforts and another for a government agency to exercise previously granted authority. What’s more, the CSC could add the new recommendations to those shared in the form of legislative language with the Armed Services Committees in the hopes they are included in this year’s NDAA. Given that CSC co-chairs Senator Angus King (I-ME) and Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) serve on their chambers’ Armed Services Committees as do the other two Members of Congress on the CSC, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Representative James Langevin (D-RI), the chances of some of the recommendations making it into statute are higher than they may be otherwise.

In its “White Paper #1: Cybersecurity Lessons from the Pandemic,” the CSC asserted:

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the challenge of ensuring resilience and continuity in a connected world. Many of the effects of this new breed of crisis can be significantly ameliorated through advance preparations that yield resilience, coherence, and focus as it spreads rapidly through the entire system, stressing everything from emergency services and supply chains to basic human needs and mental health. e pandemic produces cascading effects and high levels of uncertainty. It has undermined normal policymaking processes and, in the absence of the requisite preparedness, has forced decision makers to craft hasty and ad hoc emergency responses. Unless a new approach is devised, crises like COVID-19 will continue to challenge the modern American way of life each time they emerge. This annex collects observations from the pandemic as they relate to the security of cyberspace, in terms of both the cybersecurity challenges it creates and what it can teach the United States about how to prepare for a major cyber disruption. These insights and the accompanying recommendations, some of which are new and some of which appear in the original March 2020 report, are now more urgent than ever.

The CSC conceded that “[t]he lessons the country is learning from the ongoing pandemic are not perfectly analogous to a significant cyberattack, but they offer many illuminating parallels.

  • First, both the pandemic and a significant cyberattack can be global in nature, requiring that nations simultaneously look inward to manage a crisis and work across borders to contain its spread.
  • Second, both the COVID-19 pandemic and a significant cyberattack require a whole-of-nation response effort and are likely to challenge existing incident management doctrine and coordination mechanisms.
  • Third, when no immediate therapies or vaccines are available, testing and treatments emerge slowly; such circumstances place a premium on building systems that are agile, are resilient, and enable coordination across the government and private sector, much as is necessary in the cyber realm.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, prevention is far cheaper and preestablished relationships far more effective than a strategy based solely on detection and response.

The CSC continued:

The COVID-19 pandemic is a call to action to ensure that the United States is better prepared to withstand shocks and crises of all varieties, especially those like cyber events that we can reasonably predict will occur, even if we do not know when. We, as a nation, must internalize the lessons learned from this emergency and move forward to strengthen U.S. national preparedness.  This means building structures in government now to ensure strategic leadership and coordination through a cyber crisis. It means driving down the vulnerability of the nation’s networks and technologies. And finally, it means investing in rigorously building greater resiliency in the government, in critical infrastructure, and in our citizenry. In the past several years, experts have sounded the alarm, ranking cyberattacks as one of the most likely causes of a crisis. As the COVID-19 crisis has unfolded, the United States has experienced a wake-up call, prompting a national conversation about disaster prevention, crisis preparedness, and incident response. While COVID-19 is the root cause of today’s crisis, a significant cyberattack could be the cause of the next. If that proves to be the case, history will surely note that the time to prepare was now.

The CSC offered these four new recommendations:

  • Pass an Internet of Things Security Law: With a significant portion of the workforce working from home during the COVID-19 disruption, household internet of things (IoT) devices, particularly household routers, have become vulnerable but important pieces of our national cyber ecosystem and our adversary’s attack surface. To ensure that the manufacturers of IoT devices build basic security measures into the products they sell, Congress should pass an IoT security law. The law should focus on known challenges, like insecurity in Wi-Fi routers, and mandate that these devices have reasonable security measures, such as those outlined under the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s “Recommendations for IoT Device Manufacturers.” But it should be only modestly prescriptive, relying more heavily on outcome-based standards, because security standards change with technology over time. Nonetheless, the law should stress enduring standards both for authentication, such as requiring unique default passwords that a user must change to their own authentication mechanism upon first use, and for patching, such as ensuring that a device is capable of receiving a remote update. Congress should consider explicitly tasking the Federal Trade Commission with enforcement of the law on the basis of existing authorities under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
    • In a footnote, the CSC asserted “[t]he proposed Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2019 provides a viable model for a federal law that mandates that connected devices procured by the federal government have reasonable security measures in place, but should be expanded to cover all devices sold or offered for sale in the United States.
    • The initial draft of the “Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2019” (H.R. 1668/S. 734) was a revised, unified version of two similar bills from the 115th Congress of the same title: the “Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017” (S. 1691) and the “Internet of Things (IoT) Federal Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2018” (H.R. 7283). However, during the process of consideration in both chambers, differences emerged that as of yet have not been reconciled. However, it is possible that a final version of this bill gets folded into the FY 2021 NDAA or is passed as standalone legislation in the waning days of this Congress.
    • However, the FTC already uses its Section 5 authorities to bring actions against IoT manufacturers. For example, last month, the agency announced a settlement with Tapplock regarding “allegations that it deceived consumers by falsely claiming that its Internet-connected smart locks were designed to be “unbreakable” and that it took reasonable steps to secure the data it collected from users.”
  • Support Nonprofits that Assist Law Enforcement’s Cybercrime and Victim Support Efforts: Cyber-specific nonprofit organizations regularly collaborate with law enforcement in writing cybercrime reports, carrying out enforcement operations, and providing victim support services. As the COVID-19 pandemic has proven, trusted nonprofit organizations serve as critical law enforcement partners that can quickly mobilize to help identify and dismantle major online schemes. Such nonprofits have the expertise and flexibility to help and reinforce law enforcement efforts to disrupt cybercrime and assist victims. However, they often face financial challenges. Therefore, the Commission recommends that Congress provide grants through the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs to help fund these essential efforts.
    • The portion of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs that makes grants was provided $1.892 billion in FY 2020, with large chunks being earmarked for state and local law enforcement agencies like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. Therefore, there would likely need to be additional funding provided for this program if there will be additional eligible recipients and additional purposes.
  • Establish the Social Media Data and Threat Analysis Center: Because major social media platforms are owned by private companies, developing a robust public-private partnership is essential to effectively combat disinformation. To this end, the Commission supports the provision in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act that authorizes the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to establish and fund a Social Media Data and Threat Analysis Center (DTAC), which would take the form of an independent, nonprofit organization intended to encourage public-private cooperation to detect and counter foreign influence operations against the United States. The center would serve as a public-private facilitator, developing information-sharing procedures and establishing—jointly with social media—the threat indicators that the center will be able to access and analyze. In addition, the DTAC would be tasked with informing the public about the criteria and standards for analyzing, investigating, and determining threats from malign influence operations. Finally, in order to strengthen a collective understanding of the threats, the center would host a searchable archive of aggregated information related to foreign influence and disinformation operations.
    • This is, obviously, not really a new recommendation, but rather a call for already granted authority to be used. The Director of National Intelligence was provided discretionary authority to establish the DTAC in P.L. 116-92 and has not chosen to do so yet. There are a number of existing entities that may qualify as the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab or the Alliance for Securing Democracy. However, the issue may be resources in that the DNI was not provided any additional funding to stand up the DTAC.
  • Increase Nongovernmental Capacity to Identify and Counter Foreign Disinformation and Influence Campaigns: Congress should fund the Department of Justice to provide grants, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and the National Science Foundation, to nonprofit centers seeking to identify, expose, and explain malign foreign influence campaigns to the American public while putting those campaigns in context to avoid amplifying them. Such malign foreign influence campaigns can include covert foreign state and non-state propaganda, disinformation, or other inauthentic activity across online platforms, social networks, or other communities. These centers should analyze and monitor foreign influence operations, identify trends, put those trends into context, and create a robust, credible source of information for the American public. To ensure success, these centers should be well-resourced and coordinated with ongoing government efforts and international partners’ efforts.
    • It is not clear whether this program would be conducted through an existing DOJ program or a new one would be created. As with the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, funding may be an issue, and while the Armed Services Committees may be able to fold this into the FY 2021 (notwithstanding jurisdictional issues considering the DOJ is part of the Judiciary Committees’ purviews), but the Appropriations Committees would ultimately decide whether this would be funded.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.