This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-865T 
entitled 'Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Needed to Protect Our 
Nation's Critical Infrastructure' which was released on July 26, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT:
July, 26, 2011: 

Cybersecurity: 

Continued Attention Needed to Protect Our Nation's Critical 
Infrastructure: 

Statement of Gregory C. Wilshusen,
Director, Information Security Issues: 

GAO-11-865T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-865T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House 
of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Increasing computer interconnectivity, such as the growth of the 
Internet, has revolutionized the way our government, our nation, and 
much of the world communicate and conduct business. However, this 
widespread interconnectivity poses significant risks to the 
government’s and the nation’s computer systems, and to the critical 
infrastructures they support. These critical infrastructures include 
systems and assets—both physical and virtual—that are essential to the 
nation’s security, economic prosperity, and public health, such as 
financial institutions, telecommunications networks, and energy 
production and transmission facilities. Because most of these 
infrastructures are owned by the private sector, establishing 
effective public-private partnerships is essential to securing them 
from pervasive cyber-based threats. Federal law and policy call for 
federal entities, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
to work with private-sector partners to enhance the physical and cyber 
security of these critical infrastructures. 

GAO is providing a statement describing (1) cyber threats facing cyber-
reliant critical infrastructures; (2) recent actions the federal 
government has taken, in partnership with the private sector, to 
identify and protect cyber-reliant critical infrastructures; and (3) 
ongoing challenges to protecting these infrastructures. In preparing 
this statement, GAO relied on its previously published work in the 
area. 

What GAO Found: 

The threats to systems supporting critical infrastructures are 
evolving and growing. In a February 2011 testimony, the Director of 
National Intelligence noted that there has been a dramatic increase in 
cyber activity targeting U.S. computers and systems in the last year, 
including a more than tripling of the volume of malicious software 
since 2009. Varying types of threats from numerous sources can 
adversely affect computers, software, networks, organizations, entire 
industries, or the Internet itself. These include both unintentional 
and intentional threats, and may come in the form of targeted or 
untargeted attacks from criminal groups, hackers, disgruntled 
employees, hostile nations, or terrorists. The interconnectivity 
between information systems, the Internet, and other infrastructures 
can amplify the impact of these threats, potentially affecting the 
operations of critical infrastructure, the security of sensitive 
information, and the flow of commerce. Recent reported incidents 
include hackers accessing the personal information of hundreds of 
thousands of customers of a major U.S. bank and a sophisticated 
computer attack targeting control systems used to operate industrial 
processes in the energy, nuclear, and other critical sectors. 

Over the past 2 years, the federal government, in partnership with the 
private sector, has taken a number of steps to address threats to 
cyber critical infrastructure. In early 2009, the White House 
conducted a review of the nation’s cyberspace policy that addressed 
the missions and activities associated with the nation’s information 
and communications infrastructure. The results of the review led, 
among other things, to the appointment of a national Cybersecurity 
Coordinator with responsibility for coordinating the nation’s 
cybersecurity policies and activities. Also in 2009, DHS updated its 
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, which provides a framework 
for addressing threats to critical infrastructures and relies on a 
public-private partnership model for carrying out these efforts. DHS 
has also established a communications center to coordinate national 
response efforts to cyber attacks and work directly with other levels 
of government and the private sector and has conducted several cyber 
attack simulation exercises. 

Despite recent actions taken, a number of significant challenges 
remain to enhancing the security of cyber-reliant critical 
infrastructures, such as: 

* implementing actions recommended by the president’s cybersecurity 
policy review; 

* updating the national strategy for securing the information and 
communications infrastructure; 

* reassessing DHS’s planning approach to critical infrastructure 
protection; 

* strengthening public-private partnerships, particularly for 
information sharing; 

* enhancing the national capability for cyber warning and analysis;
* addressing global aspects of cybersecurity and governance; and; 

* securing the modernized electricity grid, referred to as the “smart 
grid.” 

In prior reports, GAO has made many recommendations to address these 
challenges. GAO also continues to identify protecting the nation’s 
cyber critical infrastructure as a governmentwide high-risk area. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-865T] or key 
components. For more information, contact Gregory C. Wilshusen at 
(202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the 
cybersecurity risks to the nation's critical infrastructure. 

Increasing computer interconnectivity--most notably growth in the use 
of the Internet--has revolutionized the way that our government, our 
nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct business. From 
its origins in the 1960s as a research project sponsored by the U.S. 
government, the Internet has grown increasingly important to both 
American and foreign businesses and consumers, serving as the medium 
for hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce each year. The 
Internet has also become an extended information and communications 
infrastructure, supporting vital services such as power distribution, 
health care, law enforcement, and national defense. 

While the benefits have been enormous, this widespread 
interconnectivity also poses significant risks to the government's and 
our nation's computer systems and, more importantly, to the critical 
operations and infrastructures they support. The speed and 
accessibility that create the enormous benefits of the computer age, 
if not properly controlled, can allow unauthorized individuals and 
organizations to inexpensively eavesdrop on or interfere with these 
operations from remote locations for mischievous or malicious 
purposes, including fraud or sabotage. Recent cyber-based attacks have 
further underscored the need to manage and bolster the cybersecurity 
of our nation's critical infrastructures. 

Mr. Chairman, in February, GAO issued its biennial high-risk list of 
government programs that have greater vulnerability to fraud, waste, 
abuse, and mismanagement or need transformation to address economy, 
efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.[Footnote 1] Once again, we 
identified protecting the federal government's information systems and 
the nation's cyber critical infrastructure as a governmentwide high- 
risk area. We have designated federal information security as a high- 
risk area since 1997; in 2003, we expanded this high-risk area to 
include protecting systems supporting our nation's critical 
infrastructure, referred to as cyber critical infrastructure 
protection or cyber CIP. 

In my testimony today, I will describe (1) cyber threats facing cyber- 
reliant critical infrastructures; (2) recent actions the federal 
government has taken, in partnership with the private sector, to 
identify and protect cyber-reliant critical infrastructures; and (3) 
ongoing challenges to protecting cyber critical infrastructure. In 
preparing this statement in July 2011, we relied on our previous work 
in these areas (please see the related GAO products page at the end of 
this statement). These products contain detailed overviews of the 
scope of our reviews and the methodology we used. The work on which 
this statement is based was performed in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. We 
believe that the evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Critical infrastructures are systems and assets, whether physical or 
virtual, so vital to our nation that their incapacity or destruction 
would have a debilitating impact on national security, economic well- 
being, pubic health or safety, or any combination of these. Critical 
infrastructure includes, among other things, banking and financial 
institutions, telecommunications networks, and energy production and 
transmission facilities, most of which are owned by the private 
sector. As these critical infrastructures have become increasingly 
dependent on computer systems and networks, the interconnectivity 
between information systems, the Internet, and other infrastructures 
creates opportunities for attackers to disrupt critical systems, with 
potentially harmful effects. 

Because the private sector owns most of the nation's critical 
infrastructures, forming effective partnerships between the public and 
private sectors is vital to successfully protect cyber-reliant 
critical assets from a multitude of threats, including terrorists, 
criminals, and hostile nations. Federal law and policy have 
established roles and responsibilities for federal agencies to work 
with the private sector and other entities in enhancing the cyber and 
physical security of critical public and private infrastructures. 
These policies stress the importance of coordination between the 
government and the private sector to protect the nation's computer-
reliant critical infrastructure. In addition, they establish the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the focal point for the 
security of cyberspace--including analysis, warning, information 
sharing, vulnerability reduction, mitigation efforts, and recovery 
efforts for public and private critical infrastructure and information 
systems. Federal policy also establishes critical infrastructure 
sectors, assigns federal agencies to each sector (known as sector lead 
agencies), and encourages private sector involvement. Table 1 shows 
the 18 critical infrastructure sectors and the lead agencies assigned 
to each sector. 

Table 1: Critical Infrastructure Sectors and Lead Agencies: 

Critical infrastructure sector: Agriculture and food; 
Description: Ensures the safety and security of food, animal feed, and 
food-producing animals; coordinates animal and plant disease and pest 
response; and provides nutritional assistance; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of Agriculture; Department of 
Health and Human Services (Food and Drug Administration). 

Critical infrastructure sector: Banking and finance; 
Description: Provides the financial infrastructure of the nation. This 
sector consists of commercial banks, insurance companies, mutual 
funds, government-sponsored enterprises, pension funds, and other 
financial institutions that carry out transactions; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of the Treasury. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Chemical; 
Description: Transforms natural raw materials into commonly used 
products benefiting society's health, safety, and productivity. The 
chemical sector produces products that are essential to automobiles, 
pharmaceuticals, food supply, electronics, water treatment, health, 
construction, and other necessities; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Commercial facilities; 
Description: Includes prominent commercial centers, office buildings, 
sports stadiums, theme parks, and other sites where large numbers of 
people congregate to pursue business activities, conduct personal 
commercial transactions, or enjoy recreational pastimes; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Communications; 
Description: Provides wired, wireless, and satellite communications to 
meet the needs of businesses and governments; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Critical manufacturing; 
Description: Transforms materials into finished goods. The sector 
includes the manufacture of primary metals, machinery, electrical 
equipment, appliances, and components, and transportation equipment; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Dams; 
Description: Manages water retention structures, including levees, 
dams, navigation locks, canals (excluding channels), and similar 
structures, including larger and nationally symbolic dams that are 
major components of other critical infrastructures that provide 
electricity and water; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Defense industrial base; 
Description: Supplies the military with the means to protect the 
nation by producing weapons, aircraft, and ships and providing 
essential services, including information technology and supply and 
maintenance; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of Defense. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Emergency services; 
Description: Saves lives and property from accidents and disaster. 
This sector includes fire, rescue, emergency medical services, and law 
enforcement organizations; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Energy; 
Description: Provides the electric power used by all sectors and the 
refining, storage, and distribution of oil and gas. The sector is 
divided into electricity and oil and natural gas; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of Energy. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Government facilities; 
Description: Ensures continuity of functions for facilities owned and 
leased by the government, including all federal, state, territorial, 
local, and tribal government facilities located in the U.S. and abroad; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Health care and public health; 
Description: Mitigates the risk of disasters and attacks and also 
provides recovery assistance if an attack occurs. The sector consists 
of health departments, clinics, and hospitals; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of Health and Human Services. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Information technology; 
Description: Produces information technology and includes hardware 
manufacturers, software developers, and service providers, as well as 
the Internet as a key resource; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: National monuments and icons; 
Description: Maintains monuments, physical structures, objects, or 
geographical sites that are widely recognized to represent the 
nation's heritage, traditions, or values, or widely recognized to 
represent important national cultural, religious, historical, or 
political significance; 
Lead agency or agencies: Department of the Interior. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; 
Description: Provides nuclear power. The sector includes commercial 
nuclear reactors and non-power nuclear reactors used for research, 
testing, and training; nuclear materials used in medical, industrial, 
and academic settings; nuclear fuel fabrication facilities; the 
decommissioning of reactors; and the transportation, storage, and 
disposal of nuclear materials and waste; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Postal and shipping; 
Description: Delivers private and commercial letters, packages, and 
bulk assets. The U.S. Postal Service and other carriers provide the 
services of this sector; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Transportation systems; 
Description: Enables movement of people and assets that are vital to 
our economy, mobility, and security with the use of aviation, ships, 
rail, pipelines, highways, trucks, buses, and mass transit; 
Lead agency or agencies: DHS. 

Critical infrastructure sector: Water; 
Description: Provides sources of safe drinking water from community 
water systems and properly treated wastewater from publicly owned 
treatment works; 
Lead agency or agencies: Environmental Protection Agency. 

Source: GAO-08-1075R, GAO-11-537R. 

[End of table] 

In May 1998, Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63) established 
critical infrastructure protection as a national goal and presented a 
strategy for cooperative efforts by the government and the private 
sector to protect the physical and cyber-based systems essential to 
the minimum operations of the economy and the government.[Footnote 2] 
Among other things, this directive encouraged the development of 
information sharing and analysis centers (ISAC) to serve as mechanisms 
for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information on cyber 
infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities to and from owners and 
operators of the sectors and the federal government. For example, the 
Financial Services, Electricity Sector, IT, and Communications ISACs 
represent sectors or subcomponents of sectors. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland 
Security.[Footnote 3] Among other things, DHS was assigned with the 
following critical infrastructure protection responsibilities: (1) 
developing a comprehensive national plan for securing the key 
resources and critical infrastructures of the United States, (2) 
recommending measures to protect those key resources and critical 
infrastructures in coordination with other groups, and (3) 
disseminating, as appropriate, information to assist in the 
deterrence, prevention, and preemption of or response to terrorist 
attacks. 

In 2003, the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace was issued, which 
assigned DHS multiple leadership roles and responsibilities in 
protecting the nation's cyber critical infrastructure.[Footnote 4] 
These include (1) developing a comprehensive national plan for 
critical infrastructure protection; (2) developing and enhancing 
national cyber analysis and warning capabilities; (3) providing and 
coordinating incident response and recovery planning, including 
conducting incident response exercises; (4) identifying, assessing, 
and supporting efforts to reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities, 
including those associated with infrastructure control systems; and 
(5) strengthening international cyberspace security. 

PDD-63 was superseded in December 2003 when Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) was issued.[Footnote 5] HSPD-7 
defined additional responsibilities for DHS, sector-specific agencies, 
and other departments and agencies. The directive instructs sector- 
specific agencies to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the 
protection of critical infrastructures to prevent, deter, and mitigate 
the effects of attacks. It also makes DHS responsible for, among other 
things, coordinating national critical infrastructure protection 
efforts and establishing uniform policies, approaches, guidelines, and 
methodologies for integrating federal infrastructure protection and 
risk management activities within and across sectors. 

As part of its implementation of the cyberspace strategy and other 
requirements to establish cyber analysis and warning capabilities for 
the nation, DHS established the United States Computer Emergency 
Readiness Team (US-CERT) to help protect the nation's information 
infrastructure. US-CERT is the focal point for the government's 
interaction with federal and private-sector entities 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, and provides cyber-related analysis, warning, information-
sharing, major incident response, and national-level recovery efforts. 

Cyber-Reliant Critical Infrastructures Face a Proliferation of Threats: 

Threats to systems supporting critical infrastructure are evolving and 
growing. In February 2011, the Director of National Intelligence 
testified that, in the past year, there had been a dramatic increase 
in malicious cyber activity targeting U.S. computers and networks, 
including a more than tripling of the volume of malicious software 
since 2009.[Footnote 6] Different types of cyber threats from numerous 
sources may adversely affect computers, software, networks, 
organizations, entire industries, or the Internet itself. Cyber 
threats can be unintentional or intentional. Unintentional threats can 
be caused by software upgrades or maintenance procedures that 
inadvertently disrupt systems. Intentional threats include both 
targeted and untargeted attacks from a variety of sources, including 
criminal groups, hackers, disgruntled employees, foreign nations 
engaged in espionage and information warfare, and terrorists. 

The potential impact of these threats is amplified by the connectivity 
between information systems, the Internet, and other infrastructures, 
creating opportunities for attackers to disrupt telecommunications, 
electrical power, and other critical services. For example, in May 
2008, we reported that the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) 
corporate network contained security weaknesses that could lead to the 
disruption of control systems networks and devices connected to that 
network.[Footnote 7] We made 19 recommendations to improve the 
implementation of information security program activities for the 
control systems governing TVA's critical infrastructures and 73 
recommendations to address specific weaknesses in security controls. 
TVA concurred with the recommendations and has taken steps to 
implement them. As government, private sector, and personal activities 
continue to move to networked operations, the threat will continue to 
grow. 

Recent reports of cyber attacks illustrate that the cyber-based 
attacks on cyber-reliant critical infrastructures could have a 
debilitating impact on national and economic security. 

* In June 2011, a major bank reported that hackers broke into its 
systems and gained access to the personal information of hundreds of 
thousands of customers. Through the bank's online banking system, the 
attackers were able to view certain private customer information. 

* In March 2011, according to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, a cyber 
attack on a defense company's network captured 24,000 files containing 
Defense Department information. He added that nations typically launch 
such attacks, but there is a growing risk of terrorist groups and 
rogue states developing similar capabilities. 

* In March 2011, a security company reported that it had suffered a 
sophisticated cyber attack that removed information about its two- 
factor authentication tool.[Footnote 8] According to the company, the 
extracted information did not enable successful direct attacks on any 
of its customers; however, the information could potentially be used 
to reduce the effectiveness of a current two-factor authentication 
implementation as part of a broader attack. 

* In February 2011, media reports stated that computer hackers broke 
into and stole proprietary information worth millions of dollars from 
the networks of six U.S. and European energy companies. 

* In July 2010, a sophisticated computer attack, known as Stuxnet, was 
discovered. It targeted control systems used to operate industrial 
processes in the energy, nuclear, and other critical sectors. It is 
designed to exploit a combination of vulnerabilities to gain access to 
its target and modify code to change the process. 

* In January 2010, it was reported that at least 30 technology 
companies--most in Silicon Valley, California--were victims of 
intrusions. The cyber attackers infected computers with hidden 
programs allowing unauthorized access to files that may have included 
the companies' computer security systems, crucial corporate data, and 
software source code. 

The Federal Government Has Taken Steps to Address Cyber Threats to 
Cyber Critical Infrastructure: 

Over the past 2 years, the federal government has taken a number of 
steps aimed at addressing cyber threats to critical infrastructure. 

In early 2009, the President initiated a review of the nation's 
cyberspace policy that specifically assessed the missions and 
activities associated with the nation's information and communication 
infrastructure and issued the results in May of that year.[Footnote 9] 
The review resulted in 24 near-and mid-term recommendations to address 
organizational and policy changes to improve the current U.S. approach 
to cybersecurity. These included, among other things, that the 
President appoint a cybersecurity policy official for coordinating the 
nation's cybersecurity policies and activities. In December 2009, the 
President appointed a Special Assistant to the President and 
Cybersecurity Coordinator to serve in this role and act as the central 
coordinator for the nation's cybersecurity policies and activities. 
Among other things, this official is to chair the primary policy 
coordination body within the Executive Office of the President 
responsible for directing and overseeing issues related to achieving a 
reliable global information and communications infrastructure. 

Also in 2009, DHS issued an updated version of its National 
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). The NIPP is intended to provide 
the framework for a coordinated national approach to addressing the 
full range of physical, cyber, and human threats and vulnerabilities 
that pose risks to the nation's critical infrastructures. The NIPP 
relies on a sector partnership model as the primary means of 
coordinating government and private-sector critical infrastructure 
protection efforts. Under this model, each sector has both a 
government council and a private sector council to address sector-
specific planning and coordination. The government and private-sector 
councils are to work in tandem to create the context, framework, and 
support for the coordination and information-sharing activities 
required to implement and sustain each sector's infrastructure 
protection efforts. The council framework allows for the involvement 
of representatives from all levels of government and the private 
sector, to facilitate collaboration and information-sharing in order 
to assess events accurately, formulate risk assessments, and determine 
appropriate protective measures. The establishment of private-sector 
councils is encouraged under the NIPP model, and these councils are to 
be the principal entities for coordinating with the government on a 
wide range of CIP activities and issues. Using the NIPP partnership 
model, the private and public sectors coordinate to manage the risks 
related to cyber CIP by, among other things, sharing information, 
providing resources, and conducting exercises. 

In October 2009, DHS established its National Cybersecurity and 
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) to coordinate national 
response efforts and work directly with federal, state, local, tribal, 
and territorial governments and private-sector partners. The NCCIC 
integrates the functions of the National Cyber Security Center, US- 
CERT, the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications, and the 
Industrial Control Systems CERT into a single coordination and 
integration center and co-locates other essential public and private 
sector cybersecurity partners. 

In September 2010, DHS issued an interim version of its national cyber 
incident response plan. The purpose of the plan is to establish the 
strategic framework for organizational roles, responsibilities, and 
actions to prepare for, respond to, and begin to coordinate recovery 
from a cyber incident. It aims to tie various policies and doctrine 
together into a single tailored, strategic, cyber-specific plan 
designed to assist with operational execution, planning, and 
preparedness activities and to guide short-term recovery efforts. 

DHS has also coordinated several cyber attack simulation exercises to 
strengthen public and private incident response capabilities. In 
September 2010, DHS conducted the third of its Cyber Storm exercises, 
which are large-scale simulations of multiple concurrent cyber 
attacks. (DHS previously conducted Cyber Storm exercises in 2006 and 
2008.) The third Cyber Storm exercise was undertaken to test the 
National Cyber Incident Response Plan, and its participants included 
representatives from federal departments and agencies, states, ISACs, 
foreign countries, and the private sector. 

Challenges in Protecting Cyber Critical Infrastructure Persist: 

Despite the actions taken by several successive administrations and 
the executive branch agencies, significant challenges remain to 
enhancing the protection of cyber-reliant critical infrastructures. 

* Implementing actions recommended by the president's cybersecurity 
policy review. In October 2010, we reported that of the 24 near-and 
mid-term recommendations made by the presidentially initiated policy 
review to improve the current U.S. approach to cybersecurity, only 2 
had been implemented and 22 were partially implemented.[Footnote 10] 
Officials from key agencies involved in these efforts (e.g., DHS, the 
Department of Defense, and the Office of Management and Budget) stated 
that progress had been slower than expected because agencies lacked 
assigned roles and responsibilities and because several of the mid-
term recommendations would require action over multiple years. We 
recommended that the national Cybersecurity Coordinator designate 
roles and responsibilities for each recommendation and develop 
milestones and plans, including measures, to show agencies' progress 
and performance. 

* Updating the national strategy for securing the information and 
communications infrastructure. In March 2009, we testified on the 
needed improvements to the nation's cybersecurity strategy.[Footnote 
11] In preparation for that testimony, we convened a panel of experts 
that included former federal officials, academics, and private-sector 
executives. The panel highlighted 12 key improvements that, in its 
view, were essential to improving the strategy and our national 
cybersecurity postures, including (1) the development of a national 
strategy that clearly articulates objectives, goals, and priorities; 
(2) focusing more actions on prioritizing assets and functions, 
assessing vulnerabilities, and reducing vulnerabilities than on 
developing plans; and (3) bolstering public-private partnerships 
though an improved value proposition and use of incentives. 

* Reassessing the cyber sector-specific planning approach to critical 
infrastructure protection. In September 2009, we reported that, among 
other things, sector-specific agencies had yet to update their 
respective sector-specific plans to fully address key DHS cyber 
security criteria.[Footnote 12] In addition, most agencies had not 
updated the actions and reported progress in implementing them as 
called for by DHS guidance. We noted that these shortfalls were 
evidence that the sector planning process has not been effective and 
thus leaves the nation in the position of not knowing precisely where 
it stands in securing cyber critical infrastructures. We recommended 
that DHS (1) assess whether existing sector-specific planning 
processes should continue to be the nation's approach to securing 
cyber and other critical infrastructure and consider whether other 
options would provide more effective results and (2) collaborate with 
the sectors to develop plans that fully address cyber security 
requirements. DHS concurred with the recommendations and has taken 
action to address them. For example, the department reported that it 
undertook a study in 2009 that determined that the existing sector-
specific planning process, in conjunction with other related efforts 
planned and underway, should continue to be the nation's approach. In 
addition, at about this time, the department met and worked with 
sector officials to update sector plans with the goal of fully 
addressing cyber-related requirements. 

* Strengthening the public-private partnerships for securing cyber- 
critical infrastructure. The expectations of private sector 
stakeholders are not being met by their federal partners in areas 
related to sharing information about cyber-based threats to critical 
infrastructure. In July 2010, we reported that federal partners, such 
as DHS, were taking steps that may address the key expectations of the 
private sector, including developing new information-sharing 
arrangements.[Footnote 13] We also reported that public sector 
stakeholders believed that improvements could be made to the 
partnership, including improving private sector sharing of sensitive 
information. We recommended, among other things, that the national 
Cybersecurity Coordinator and DHS work with their federal and private- 
sector partners to enhance information-sharing efforts, including 
leveraging a central focal point for sharing information among the 
private sector, civilian government, law enforcement, the military, 
and the intelligence community. DHS concurred with this recommendation 
and officials stated that they have made progress in addressing the 
recommendation. We will be determining the extent of that progress as 
part of our audit follow-up efforts. 

* Enhancing cyber analysis and warning capabilities. DHS's US-CERT has 
not fully addressed 15 key attributes of cyber analysis and warning 
capabilities that we identified.[Footnote 14] As a result, we 
recommended in July 2008 that the department address shortfalls 
associated with the 15 attributes in order to fully establish a 
national cyber analysis and warning capability as envisioned in the 
national strategy. DHS agreed in large part with our recommendations 
and has reported that it is taking steps to implement them. We are 
currently working with DHS officials to determine the status of their 
efforts to address these recommendations. 

* Addressing global cybersecurity and governance. Based on our review, 
the U.S. government faces a number of challenges in formulating and 
implementing a coherent approach to global aspects of cyberspace, 
including, among other things, providing top-level leadership, 
developing a comprehensive strategy, and ensuring cyberspace-related 
technical standards and policies do not pose unnecessary barriers to 
U.S. trade.[Footnote 15] Specifically, we determined that the national 
Cybersecurity Coordinator's authority and capacity to effectively 
coordinate and forge a coherent national approach to cybersecurity 
were still under development. In addition, the U.S. government had not 
documented a clear vision of how the international efforts of federal 
entities, taken together, support overarching national goals. Further, 
we learned that some countries had attempted to mandate compliance 
with their indigenously developed cybersecurity standards in a manner 
that risked discriminating against U.S. companies. We recommended 
that, among other things, the Cybersecurity Coordinator develop with 
other relevant entities a comprehensive U.S. global cyberspace 
strategy that, among other things, addresses technical standards and 
policies while taking into consideration U.S. trade. In May 2011, the 
White House released the International Strategy for Cyberspace: 
Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World. We will be 
determining the extent that this strategy addresses our recommendation 
as part of our audit follow-up efforts. 

* Securing the modernized electricity grid. In January 2011, we 
reported on progress and challenges in developing, adopting, and 
monitoring cybersecurity guidelines for the modernized, IT-reliant 
electricity grid (referred to as the "smart grid").[Footnote 16] Among 
other things, we identified six key challenges to securing smart grid 
systems. These included, among others, 

- a lack of security features being built into certain smart grid 
systems, 

- a lack of an effective mechanism for sharing information on 
cybersecurity within the electric industry, and: 

- a lack of electricity industry metrics for evaluating cybersecurity. 

We also reported that the Department of Commerce's National Institute 
for Standards and Technology (NIST) had developed and issued a first 
version of its smart grid cybersecurity guidelines. While NIST largely 
addressed key cybersecurity elements that it had planned to include in 
the guidelines, it did not address an important element essential to 
securing smart grid systems that it had planned to include--addressing 
the risk of attacks that use both cyber and physical means. NIST 
officials said that they intend to update the guidelines to address 
the missing elements, and have drafted a plan to do so. While a 
positive step, the plan and schedule were still in draft form. We 
recommended that NIST finalize its plan and schedule for updating its 
cybersecurity guidelines to incorporate missing elements; NIST agreed 
with this recommendation. 

In addition to the challenges we have previously identified, we have 
ongoing work in two key areas related to the protection of cyber 
critical infrastructures. The first is to identify the extent to which 
cybersecurity guidance has been specified within selected critical 
infrastructure sectors and to identify areas of commonality and 
difference between sector-specific guidance and guidance applicable to 
federal agencies. The second is a study of risks associated with the 
supply chains used by federal agencies to procure IT equipment, 
software, or services, along with the extent to which national 
security-related agencies are taking risk-based approaches to supply- 
chain management. We plan to issue the results of this work in 
November 2011 and early 2012, respectively. 

In summary, the threats to information systems are evolving and 
growing, and systems supporting our nation's critical infrastructure 
are not sufficiently protected to consistently thwart the threats. 
While actions have been taken, the administration and executive branch 
agencies need to address the challenges in this area to improve our 
nation's cybersecurity posture, including enhancing cyber analysis and 
warning capabilities and strengthening the public-private partnerships 
for securing cyber-critical infrastructure. Until these actions are 
taken, our nation's cyber critical infrastructure will remain 
vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be 
happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee 
have at this time. 

Contact and Acknowledgments: 

If you have any questions regarding this statement, please contact 
Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Other 
key contributors to this statement include Michael Gilmore (Assistant 
Director), Bradley Becker, Kami Corbett, and Lee McCracken. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Needed to Protect Our Nation's 
Critical Infrastructure and Federal Information Systems. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-463T]. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 
2011. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. Washington, D.C.: February 
2011. 

Electricity Grid Modernization: Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity 
Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to be Addressed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-117]. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 
2011. 

Information Security: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Secure 
Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can Mitigate Risk. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-43]. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 
2010. 

Cyberspace Policy: Executive Branch Is Making Progress Implementing 
2009 Policy Review Recommendations, but Sustained Leadership Is 
Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-24]. 
Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2010. 

Information Security: Progress Made on Harmonizing Policies and 
Guidance for National Security and Non-National Security Systems. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-916]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 15, 2010. 

Information Management: Challenges in Federal Agencies' Use of Web 2.0 
Technologies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-872T]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2010. 

Critical Infrastructure Protection: Key Private and Public Cyber 
Expectations Need to Be Consistently Addressed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-628]. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 
2010. 

Cyberspace: United States Faces Challenges in Addressing Global 
Cybersecurity and Governance. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-606]. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2010. 

Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Is Needed to Protect Federal 
Information Systems from Evolving Threats. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-834T]. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 
2010. 

Cybersecurity: Key Challenges Need to Be Addressed to Improve Research 
and Development. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-466]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2010. 

Information Security: Federal Guidance Needed to Address Control 
Issues with Implementing Cloud Computing. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-513]. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 
2010. 

Cybersecurity: Progress Made but Challenges Remain in Defining and 
Coordinating the Comprehensive National Initiative. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-338]. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 
2010. 

Critical Infrastructure Protection: DHS Needs to Fully Address Lessons 
Learned from Its First Cyber Storm Exercise. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-825]. Washington, D.C.: September 
9, 2008. 

Information Security: TVA Needs to Address Weaknesses in Control 
Systems and Networks. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-526]. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2008. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). 

[2] The White House, Presidential Decision Directive/NSC 63 
(Washington, D.C.: May 22, 1998). 

[3] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002). 

[4] The White House, The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace 
(Washington, D.C.: February 2003). 

[5] The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 
(Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2003). 

[6] Director of National Intelligence, Statement for the Record on the 
Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 
statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Feb. 16, 
2011). 

[7] GAO, Information Security: TVA Needs to Address Weaknesses in 
Control Systems and Networks, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-526] (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2008). 

[8] Two-factor authentication is a way of verifying someone's identity 
by using two of the following: something the user knows (password), 
something the user has (token), or something unique to the user 
(fingerprint). 

[9] The White House, Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and 
Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure (Washington, 
D.C.: May 29, 2009). 

[10] GAO, Cyberspace Policy: Executive Branch Is Making Progress 
Implementing 2009 Policy Review Recommendations, but Sustained 
Leadership Is Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-24] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 
2010). 

[11] GAO, National Cybersecurity Strategy: Key Improvements are Needed 
to Strengthen the Nation's Posture, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-432T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 
2009). 

[12] GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Current Cyber Sector- 
Specific Planning Approach Needs Reassessment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-969] (Washington, D.C.: September 
24, 2009). 

[13] GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Key Private and Public 
Cyber Expectations Need to Be Consistently Addressed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-628] (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 
2010). 

[14] GAO, Cyber Analysis and Warning: DHS Faces Challenges in 
Establishing a Comprehensive National Capability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-588] (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 
2008). 

[15] GAO, Cyberspace: United States Faces Challenges in Addressing 
Global Cybersecurity and Governance, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-606] (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2010). 

[16] GAO, Electricity Grid Modernization: Progress Being Made on 
Cybersecurity Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to Be Addressed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-117] (Washington, D.C.: 
January 12, 2011). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: