Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Security assessments"
GAO-20-123, May 27, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-146R, Dec 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
GAO-18-211, Feb 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9342
including 7 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation in our report, but stated that it would attempt to develop a measurement mechanism as part of its annual data calls to the Food and Agriculture Sector. Specifically, officials stated that the diversity of the sector makes it difficult to develop a method for determining the level and type of framework adoption across the sector that would apply to all members. USDA officials added, however, that the sector coordinating council frequently invites the Department of Homeland Security to semi-annual meetings to present on both the threat to cybersecurity and resources available to support the needs of the sector. However, as of January 2020, USDA officials had yet to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption. Implementing our recommendations to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by critical infrastructure sectors is essential to the success of protection efforts.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it worked with stakeholders to better align the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) with the updated NIST Cybersecurity Framework but did not provide specific information regarding the adoption or use of the framework. To fully address the recommendation, DOE should have a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by sector entities if DOE, along with other entities, want to ensure that its facilitation efforts are successful and determine whether organizations are realizing positive results by adopting the framework. We will continue to monitor DOE actions in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments, EPA did not explicitly state whether it agreed or disagreed with our recommendation, but said that several factors constrain the agency from implementing the recommendation. EPA also said it agrees that a comprehensive assessment of framework adoption within the water sector would assist with evaluating and tailoring efforts to promote its use. Further, the agency stated that it will continue to work with the Water Sector Coordinating Council and sector partners to promote and facilitate adoption of the cybersecurity framework. The agency also suggested options related to developing cross-sector metrics and survey methods and stated that it will collect available data that may be characterized as cybersecurity framework "awareness," such as downloads of guidance materials and participation in classroom trainings and webinars. However, as of February 2020, EPA had yet to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption. Officials identified steps the department is taking to facilitate framework use. Specifically, EPA officials told us that the agency will coordinate with its Sector Coordinating Council to identify appropriate means to collect and report information, including a survey, to determine the level and type of framework adoption. They explained that, in the past, the water sector expressed concerns with sharing sensitive cybersecurity information and in developing metrics to evaluate cybersecurity practices. . However, EPA officials stated that they have conducted training, webcasts, and outreach related to cybersecurity, including using the framework and tailoring its efforts to sector needs. According to EPA officials, the agency's goal in doing so was to ensure that sector organizations understood the importance of the framework. While the agency has some ongoing initiatives, implementing our recommendation to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by its critical infrastructure sector is essential to the success of protection efforts.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with the recommendation in our report and stated that it would work with appropriate entities to assist in sector adoption. HHS officials, in collaboration with NIST and a joint Cybersecurity Working Group, developed 10 best practices in May 2017 (Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices) for the Healthcare and Public Health Services sector based on the framework. These practices allowed stakeholders to identify how to use the framework with existing sector resources by raising awareness and providing vetted cybersecurity practices to enable the organizations to mitigate cybersecurity threats to the sector. In addition, officials from HHS's Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) stated that the working group discussed the challenges associated with measuring the use and impact of the NIST framework, and approved the establishment of a task group to further investigate the issue. ASPR officials added that some of the ideas discussed included the use of surveys and identification of a set of voluntary reporting indicators. In its fiscal year 2021 budget justification, HHS noted that it participated in a Health Care SCC Cybersecurity Working Group survey that was sent to group members in June 2019. However, while the survey included a question on the extent a working group member used the framework, SCC officials stated that the survey results were not statistically meaningful. While the department has ongoing initiatives, it had yet to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption. Implementing our recommendations to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by critical infrastructure sectors is essential to the success of protection efforts.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with the recommendation in our report and stated that its National Protection and Programs Directorate, as the sector-specific agency for 9 of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors, will continue to work closely with its private sector partners to ensure framework adoption is a priority. Additionally, the department stated that the directorate will work closely with its private sector partners to better understand the extent of framework adoption and barriers to adoption by entities across their respective sectors. As of January 2020, the department had begun taking steps to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption in the respective sectors. Specifically, in October 2019, DHS, in coordination with its Information Technology (IT) sector partner, administered a survey to all small and midsized IT sector organizations to gather information on, among other things, framework use and plans to report on the results in 2020. DHS officials stated that any small or mid-sized business across all critical infrastructure sectors could complete the survey and that the department had promoted the survey to all sectors.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, the department had begun taking steps to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption in the respective sectors. Specifically, officials in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told us that they planned to develop and distribute a survey to the Transportation Systems sector to determine the level and type of framework adoption. DOT officials stated that the draft survey was undergoing DHS legal review and that the completion of the review and subsequent Office of Management and Budget review would determine when the survey is approved for distribution.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of the Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation in our report. The department stated that it will assess using the identified initiatives and their viability for collecting and reporting sector-wide improvements from use of the framework with input from the sector coordinating council (SCC) and financial regulators. However, as of January 2020, the department had yet to develop methods to determine the level and type of framework adoption. Treasury officials stated that the department, in coordination with the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee, and in consultation with NIST, developed the Cybersecurity Lexicon in March 2018. The lexicon addressed, among other things, common terminology for cyber terms used in the framework. Additionally, the Financial Services sector, in consultation with NIST, created the Financial Service Sector Cybersecurity Profile (profile) in October 2018, which mapped the framework core to existing regulations and guidance, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission System Safeguards Testing Requirements. Officials stated that these efforts will facilitate the use of the framework. However, while the department has ongoing initiatives, implementing our recommendations to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by critical infrastructure sectors is essential to the success of protection efforts.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Shortly after the issuance of the report, VA notified GAO that it was in the process of working with the lnteragency Security Committee (ISC) to update its vulnerability assessment program, with a target completion date of January 2019. Despite multiple attempts, as of June 2020, VA has not provided any information on its progress in updating its program.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Shortly after the issuance of the report, VA notified GAO that it had identified OS&LE as the internal entity responsible for conducting a complete review of VA's current risk management policies and processes for VA facilities and that it was reviewing an ISC-certified risk assessment tool for possible implementation consideration. Despite multiple attempts, as of June 2020, VA had not provided an update on its efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-18-72, Oct 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an updated Physical Security Policy and Procedures Handbook in January 2020, which includes a series of internal controls and physical security performance measures. We have reviewed the handbook and requested additional information from CBP to determine whether it meets ISC's Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed, initially tested, and deployed a risk assessment methodology that aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities. In August and September of 2019, FAA trained some staff on the new methodology, which is being integrated into the facility security reporting system. After resolving any software compatibility issues, completing all necessary testing and training, and issuing the associated security policy, FAA expects to fully implement the methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drafted an updated facility security policy and distributed it for comment in October 2019. It received over 300 comments that are currently being addressed. Once completed, the policy is to incorporate a methodology that fully aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities for assessing all undesirable events, considering all three factors of risk, and documenting all deviations from the standard countermeasures. FAA plans to publish the new policy to coincide with the implementation of its risk-assessment methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) update of its facility security policy and its associated databases should help to improve the monitoring and use of physical security information to better assist with risk assessment decision-making. In February 2020, FAA officials said that its facility security reporting system is to be improved with new metrics and executive level reporting. Such improvements are to result in increased program oversight, risk awareness, and mitigation planning. These improvements are to be completed by December 31, 2020 to coincide with full implementation of the components of the risk management framework, such as the risk assessment methodology, personnel training, and policy publication.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is drafting a revised physical-security regulation and manual that is to align with risk management processes, including a tracking and monitoring component. It expects to implement a revised process by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the need to develop and implement a database to track and monitor physical security assessment schedules across all of its components. As a result, USDA plans to request funding in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2021 to design and build such a database. If sufficient funding is secured and development efforts go as planned, the agency anticipates having the database operational by the end of 2021.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: We reported in May 2019 that DOE and NNSA continued to make progress in responding to this recommendation. The draft 2018 annual report contained, as recommended, more complete and uniform information on assessments, though in some cases different terminology was used by programs and sites. As of June 2020, we have requested final 2018, 2019, and 2020 annual reports from NNSA to ensure progress has continued. Once we have received and reviewed the reports, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, DOE has not implemented this recommendation. While DOE program offices (Environmental Management, Science, and Nuclear Energy) are individually considering long-term needs, the program offices are not required by Congress to submit the kind of physical security plan that Congress requires of NNSA. In the absence of Congressional direction, we believe it is unlikely that DOE will fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, we are continuing to monitor actions related to this recommendation. DOE has acknowledged in a classified memorandum the security risks associated with the slow pace of the material control and accountability order. DOE has also developed a plan to implement measures to address these risks in a phased approach with final implementation sometime in the 2020s. Some of the early phases will be complete between 2019 and 2022, but others will extend beyond 2022. As such, it will be important for DOE to continue to report to Congress on residual risk until planned actions are fully completed and their implementation has been verified by the relevant DOE program offices and DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments. We will update the status of this recommendation once we have we have received and reviewed DOE's classified 2018-2020 annual reports to ensure this action is taken.
GAO-16-593, Jul 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) was responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department approved a cost baseline for one of the components of JIE, the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), and developed a cost estimate for another component, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services (ECAPS) program. The ECAPS cost estimate was substantially consistent with the practices described in the report. However, the JRSS cost estimate was not developed consistent with the best practices described in the report. Specifically, the department did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps in the JRSS cost estimate; however, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation. The officials also stated that planning for JIE components other than JRSS and ECAPS had not begun; therefore, there were no other JIE component cost estimates. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network part of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) component; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In addition, In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that another JIE initiative, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services program, had an approved baseline schedule. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the schedule.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network component of JRSS; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO said that the JRSS schedule had not been re-baselined and the department had not developed a schedule management plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement it; however, more needs to be done. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department has developed an inventory of cybersecurity knowledge and skills of existing staff. Specifically, we reported in our June 2018 report Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Improve Baseline Assessments and Procedures for Coding Positions (GAO-18-466) that the department had developed an assessment that included the percentage of cybersecurity personnel holding certifications and the level of preparedness of personnel without existing credentials to take certification exams. In August 2018, the office of the DOD CIO stated that the department planned to identify work roles of critical need and establish gap assessment and mitigation strategies by April 2019. However, as of July 2019, the department had not provided an update on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of August 2018, it has not provided evidence that it has addressed it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In May 2019, the office of the DOD CIO stated that it had developed a schedule to complete JIE security assessments. However, as of July 2019, the office had not provided the schedule or demonstrated that it has a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that includes the rest of the elements of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however it has not fully implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, in April 2017, the JRSS program office documented the methodology, ground rules and assumptions, among other things, used to develop the cost estimate we reviewed in our report, and the JIE Executive Committee established the estimate as its JRSS cost baseline. However, the cost estimate documentation was not sufficient to address our recommendation. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation.
GAO-10-582, Jun 21, 2010
Phone: (202)512-6870
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.