OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U S  Department of Energy  EVALUATION REPORT  DOE­OIG­17­01  October 2016  Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 October 14 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY FROM Rickey R Hass Acting Inspector General SUBJECT INFORMATION Evaluation Report on “The Department of Energy’s Unclassified Cybersecurity Program – 2016” BACKGROUND The use of information technology by Federal agencies continues to evolve resulting in greater opportunities for accessibility to Government information and resources With advancements in technology however cybersecurity incidents have become a prominent threat and are occurring at an increasing frequency The Office of Management and Budget noted in its fiscal year FY 2015 report to Congress that Federal agencies reported an increase in volume and sophistication of cyber incidents In addition the Department of Energy continues to encounter various types of cybersecurity incidents including compromise of user workstations Web defacements and loss or theft of information technology equipment In fact the Department has reported more than 640 incidents in FY 2016 The Federal Information Security Modernization Act requires Federal agencies to of 2014 develop implement and manage agency-wide information security programs In addition Federal agencies are required to provide acceptable levels of security for the information and systems that support their operations and assets As required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of the 2014 Office of Inspector General conducted an independent evaluation to determine whether the Department’s unclassified cybersecurity program adequately protected its data and information systems This report documents the results of our evaluation of the Department for FY 2016 RESULTS OF EVALUATION The Department including the National Nuclear Security Administration had taken a number of actions over the past year to address previously identified weaknesses related to its cybersecurity program In particular the Department made progress remediating weaknesses identified in our FY 2015 evaluation which resulted in the closure of 10 of 12 prior year deficiencies The Department also improved the completeness of its reporting of contractor system security information to the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget an issue we had reported on for several years While these actions were positive our current evaluation found that the types of deficiencies identified in prior years including issues related to vulnerability management system integrity of Web applications access controls and segregation of duties and configuration management continue to exist In particular we found the following  Although improvements had been made weaknesses continue to exist related to the Department’s vulnerability management program Specifically we identified that locations continued to use software on workstations and servers that was missing security patches or was no longer supported by the vendor For instance we determined that all workstations tested at two locations were missing current security patches for known vulnerabilities even though the patches had been released more than 30 days prior to our testing  Deficiencies existed related to system integrity of Web applications For example our testing identified that applications used to support human resource financial and business activities accepted malicious input that could have been used to launch attacks against application users Similar to prior years we also noted that several applications stored user authentication information in an unsecure manner  Access control and or segregation of duties weaknesses were identified at eight locations For instance we determined that three locations had not performed a periodic review of user access to ensure that privileges were required for the applications reviewed In addition three locations had weaknesses related to password management including the use of blank or inappropriately shared passwords  Weaknesses existed at four locations related to configuration management programs Specifically our review of sampled configuration changes found that change requests were not always properly documented for two general support systems The weaknesses identified occurred in part because the Department had not fully developed and or implemented policies and procedures related to the weaknesses identified in our report For instance we found that the implementation of configuration and security patch management processes had not ensured that software remained secure In addition Department officials had not always implemented an effective performance monitoring and risk management program including the use of an effective cybersecurity continuous monitoring program We continued to identify concerns with the Department’s management of plans of action and milestones to track corrective actions for its cybersecurity program In addition although not contributing directly to each of the weaknesses identified in our report we noted challenges throughout the Department related to ensuring that cybersecurity policies and procedures are updated in a timely manner to meet Federal requirements Most notably we found that the Department’s primary cybersecurity directive had not incorporated critical Federal requirements issued more than 3 years ago In addition as noted in several previous evaluations the Office of Science had not updated its Program Cyber Security Plan since June 2010 to reflect new cybersecurity risks and changes to Federal or Department policy 2 Without improvements to its cybersecurity program such as enhanced controls over vulnerability management and system access the Department’s systems and information will continue to be at a higher-than-necessary risk of compromise loss and or modification In addition absent a fully effective performance monitoring and risk management program the Department may not adequately address cybersecurity risks to ensure protection of data and information systems Furthermore without improvements to ensure that the most current security requirements are implemented programs and sites may not keep pace with the challenges facing an ever-changing cybersecurity landscape Therefore we made several recommendations that if fully implemented should help strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity program Due to the sensitive nature of the vulnerabilities identified during our evaluation we have omitted specific information and site locations from this report We have provided site and program officials with detailed information regarding vulnerabilities that we identified at their locations and in many cases officials have initiated corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Management concurred with the report’s recommendations and indicated that corrective actions had been initiated or were planned to address the issues identified in the report Management’s comments and our responses are summarized in the body of the report Management’s formal comments are included in Appendix 3 Attachments cc Deputy Secretary Under Secretary for Science and Energy Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Under Secretary for Management and Performance Chief of Staff Chief Information Officer Chief Financial Officer 3 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S UNCLASSIFIED CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM – 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Evaluation Report Details of Finding 1 Recommendations 8 Management Response and Auditor Comments 9 Appendices 1 Objective Scope and Methodology 10 2 Related Reports 12 3 Management Comments 17 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S UNCLASSIFIED CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM – 2016 DETAILS OF FINDING The Federal Information Security Modernization Act FISMA requires the Office of of 2014 Inspector General OIG to conduct an independent evaluation of the Department of Energy’s information security program and practices to determine whether the unclassified cybersecurity program adequately protects information systems and data To support our FISMA evaluation we conducted extensive control testing and assessments of the unclassified cybersecurity programs at 23 Department locations primarily under the purview of the Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration Under Secretary for Science and Energy and Under Secretary for Management and Performance Our review included testing of networks and applications scanning for technical vulnerabilities and validating corrective actions taken to remediate prior year weaknesses We also relied on results from ongoing and prior OIG audits and conducted testwork at six Department locations to support an evaluation against FISMA metrics issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget Furthermore we considered the results of reviews conducted by the Department’s Office of Enterprise Assessments when reporting on the Department’s cybersecurity program Our fiscal year FY 2016 evaluation identified that the Department had taken significant action to address the deficiencies noted during our prior year evaluation such as the following  Department programs had taken corrective actions related to vulnerability management access controls and maintaining the integrity of Web applications which resulted in the closure of 10 of the 12 deficiencies reported during our prior year evaluation  The Department made significant improvements to report on the status of its entire cybersecurity program to include information related to contractor systems Specifically we noted that contractor information was reported for 48 of 65 metrics in the Department’s FISMA submission to the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget This represented more than a three-fold increase from the prior year Although the actions taken by the Department should help improve its cybersecurity posture additional effort is needed to further enhance security over systems and information Our review of 23 locations revealed that the identified vulnerabilities were similar in type to those identified during prior evaluations Unclassified Cybersecurity Program Our FY 2016 evaluation identified weaknesses related to vulnerability management system integrity of Web applications access controls and segregation of duties and configuration management Although the types of vulnerabilities identified were consistent with our prior evaluation our FY 2016 review disclosed weaknesses at a number of new locations and noted unresolved weaknesses from the prior year at two locations Details of Finding Page 1 Vulnerability Management The Department had taken action to address two of the vulnerability management deficiencies identified in our FY 2015 review related to information system assets that were operating without current security patches for known vulnerabilities or using default passwords However our testwork indicated that vulnerability management weaknesses existed at six locations with problems of varying criticality Specifically our review determined the following  All workstations tested at two locations were operating without current security patches for known vulnerabilities even though the patches had been released more than 30 days prior to our testing For example all workstations tested at one location were missing high or critical security updates and patches resulting in various types of vulnerabilities Furthermore our ongoing audit of cybersecurity at an Office of Science Science location identified 243 unique vulnerabilities on information system assets including 224 92 percent high or medium risk vulnerabilities  Four locations were running applications that the vendor no longer supported For example at one site we identified at least five unsupported software applications In addition one site was running unsupported client applications on more than half of the workstations tested  One site reported 571 unique vulnerabilities 75 critical and 496 high during our testwork some of which were discovered more than 10 years ago Officials explained that many of these vulnerabilities existed on numerous types of devices and legacy systems To their credit subsequent to our testwork site officials stated they took action to significantly reduce the number of high and critical vulnerabilities  Although one location addressed deficiencies noted in our prior review it had not fully implemented the vulnerability management program as recommended Specifically the site did not review and verify the accuracy of system information update its asset inventory or ensure that information assets were receiving virus signature updates in a timely manner Without an effective virus protection program information assets are at risk for computer viruses and other malicious attacks that may affect data integrity and confidentiality We found that locations implemented certain controls to mitigate risks associated with security weaknesses However we determined that the mitigating controls may not always be sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that patches would be applied and vulnerabilities were remediated in a timely manner The failure of such controls could result in unauthorized access to systems and information as well as loss or disruption to critical operations In addition to our testing the Department’s Office of Enterprise Assessments reported on vulnerability management weaknesses at numerous sites throughout FY 2016 Details of Finding Page 2 System Integrity of Web Applications We identified numerous weaknesses related to system integrity of Web applications at six locations Our testwork found that Web applications used to support human resource financial and business functions did not properly validate input data and or protect the confidentiality of user credentials This increased the risk of malicious attacks that could result in unauthorized access to the applications and sensitive data Our review found the following  Eight applications tested at five locations accepted malicious input data that could be used to launch attacks against legitimate application users These types of attacks known as cross-site scripting could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to an application make unauthorized changes to data and disclose sensitive information In addition one of the eight applications did not validate input data and allowed the data to be used in a way that made the application vulnerable to attacks against the application’s database server This type of attack could result in unauthorized access to application functionality and the modification of information stored within the database  At four locations we identified six applications that stored user authentication information in an unsecure manner on the network making the authentication information accessible to any Web server on the same network Web applications that do not properly protect the confidentiality of user authentication information are at an increased risk of unauthorized access to the application and sensitive data stored within the system  One application did not properly enforce access controls a situation that could have allowed users with lower privileges to browse to Web pages that should have been restricted to higher privileged users Once at the restricted page lower privileged users could have accessed data and performed functions that were reserved for users with higher privileges  One location had made progress addressing prior year weaknesses related to managing Web applications However it had not completed corrective actions to identify and remediate Web application vulnerabilities and ensure that input data was validated before the application accepted it for further processing A successful attack against this weakness could have compromised segregation of duties rules and resulted in unauthorized changes to data and disclosure of sensitive information During FY 2016 the Office of Enterprise Assessments noted similar issues at four locations Web application weaknesses such as those noted above could also have negative impacts on the security of information systems as well as application and data reliability Access Controls and Segregation of Duties Notably the Department had taken steps to correct access control related weaknesses identified during our prior year review However our current evaluation identified several new Details of Finding Page 3 deficiencies related to access controls and segregation of duties Specifically we noted weaknesses in the following areas  One location had not uniquely identified and authenticated database administrators of two databases Specifically database administrators inappropriately used default administrative accounts for identification In addition account authorization forms were not maintained to identify users and assign and authorize privileges The deficiencies noted could result in individual accountability weaknesses for database administrator activities such as creating and granting roles when using shared accounts  Three locations had not performed a periodic review of user access for the applications reviewed For instance one location had not periodically reviewed shared database administrative accounts Failing to perform periodic user access reviews may increase the risk of inappropriate access to applications In addition we noted that officials at one location had not removed terminated users’ access from an application within required timeframes  Password management weaknesses existed at three locations reviewed At one location system administrators used a blank password for an administrator account used to manage firewalls switches and other networking devices We found that the other location routinely shared passwords among database administrators which is contrary to Federal and site-level requirements  As part of our testing against the FISMA metrics we found that the vast majority of sites reviewed had not used personal identity verification card credentials to permit system access for all privileged users and 85 percent of non-privileged users While the Department had developed an implementation approach it recently reported in its monthly performance submission to the Office of Management and Budget that only 57 percent of privileged users and 21 percent of non-privileged users were using personal identity verification cards to authenticate to information systems This issue was recently highlighted as an area of focus by the Office of Management and Budget and is the subject of an OIG review that was in progress at the time this report was issued  Segregation of duties weaknesses existed at one location We determined that individuals were assigned conflicting roles within a financial application and that the conflicting roles had existed for an extended period as far back as 2004 Unnecessary privileges assigned to users to perform assigned tasks may increase the risk of unauthorized configuration changes and user profile modifications In addition the risk of unintentional errors and possible malicious behavior may increase and could result in data modification Access control weaknesses were also identified in our report on TheEnergy Information Administration’s Technology Program DOE-OIG-16-04 November 2015 Specifically we found that application functionality allowed for the potential bypass of access controls due to the Details of Finding Page 4 use of default credentials and lack of input data validation Similar to the issues we identified during our reviews the Office of Enterprise Assessments also reported on a number of access control deficiencies at five locations reviewed during FY 2016 Configuration Management Our evaluation identified weaknesses related to the configuration management process at four locations Configuration management involves the identification and management of security features for all components of an information system at a given point and systemically controls changes to that configuration during the system’s life cycle At two locations reviewed we found that information system change requests were not always properly documented For example changes were implemented without management approval and tested implemented without test plans and documented test results Due to the confirmed lack of documentation we were unable to determine whether changes were successfully tested prior to implementation in the production environment Although we identified compensating controls to mitigate risk at both locations we determined that the weaknesses identified could have an impact on security over the general support systems Cybersecurity Program Management The weaknesses identified occurred in part because the Department had not fully developed and or implemented policies and procedures related to the weaknesses noted in our report In addition as indicated in our prior report the Department had not always implemented an effective performance monitoring and risk management program including the use of an effective cybersecurity continuous monitoring program Policies and Procedures Programs and sites had not always developed policies and procedures to ensure fully effective security controls over systems and information In particular we found that a number of locations had not established complete procedures related to areas such as vulnerability management access controls and system integrity of Web applications In at least one instance we noted that security patch management processes were not adequate to ensure that unsupported software was upgraded to a supported version or removed in a timely manner In addition we determined that two locations’ vulnerability management programs had not included adequate Web application testing procedures to identify vulnerabilities related to data confidentiality and integrity of authentication functionality and access control configurations in Web applications Even when policies and procedures were documented they were not always fully implemented For example we found that robust patch management procedures had not been implemented to effectively remediate vulnerabilities affecting information system assets We noted that three sites had not fully implemented security patch management processes over information systems Contrary to existing procedures the sites had not ensured that security updates and patches for known vulnerabilities and or outdated software were applied in a timely manner We found that in one case site officials had not coordinated vulnerability scanning processes with energy Details of Finding Page 5 savings goals resulting in workstations that were shut down during times of after-hours scanning Officials commented that subsequent to our review they had replaced all evaluated machines and improved the patching process Similarly we determined that officials had not always implemented existing policies and procedures related to access controls and configuration management Specifically officials at several locations had not followed their access control procedures related to ensuring annual reviews of user access or enforced minimum password requirements throughout the computing environment In addition even though a configuration management plan for infrastructure change requests existed one site had not followed the plan and fully implemented effective separation of duties related to configuration changes over the system reviewed Performance Monitoring and Risk Management The Department had not implemented a fully effective performance monitoring and risk management program Consistent with prior year FISMA evaluations we noted problems with the Department’s plan of action and milestones POA M process This process is an important tool required to assist management in identifying prioritizing and tracking remediation activities for known cybersecurity vulnerabilities While we found that the vast majority of weaknesses identified during our FY 2015 evaluation were included in POA Ms submitted to the Office of the Chief Information Officer we continued to identify concerns  The percentage of open milestones that were past the scheduled completion date substantially increased since our prior year evaluation In particular our analysis found that 851 of 1 093 open milestones 78 percent were overdue Of those 53 percent were at least 1 year beyond the estimated completion date  POA Ms were not effectively utilized to track prioritize and remediate weaknesses at three locations reviewed Specifically we found that one location was internally tracking POA M items but items were not reported to the Office of the Chief Information Officer Another location was unable to provide documentation to support that the POA Ms were reviewed by the cognizant program office Furthermore an ongoing OIG review found that one site had not included all self-identified weaknesses in its POA M process The Office of Enterprise Assessments reported similar issues at six locations reviewed during FY 2016 We also determined that continuous monitoring and risk management processes at several locations reviewed were not always effective to identify and remediate cybersecurity weaknesses Specifically many of the vulnerabilities we identified occurred because officials had not ensured that adequate safeguards were in place and operating effectively to identify and remediate Web application vulnerabilities For example application security or vulnerability management programs at three locations did not include adequate Web application testing procedures At another location the vulnerability management process did not include validation procedures to ensure complete coverage of application functionality during scans Officials at another site did not always perform detailed vulnerability scanning including scans using authenticated credentials to identify missing security patches Details of Finding Page 6 Risk to Information and Systems Without improvements to address the weaknesses identified in our report the Department’s information and systems will continue to be at a higher-than-necessary risk of compromise loss and or modification The OIG has continuously recognized cybersecurity as a management challenge area for the Department emphasizing the critical need to enhance the Department’s overall security posture We found that deficiencies in developing updating and or implementing policies and procedures may adversely affect the Department’s ability to properly secure its information technology assets Furthermore without a fully effective process for tracking corrective actions using POA Ms the Department may not have a complete understanding of the status of the cybersecurity program and the current risks to the program Although sites had implemented compensating controls to mitigate a number of the weaknesses identified during our review our testwork found that an attacker could exploit the existing vulnerabilities Therefore additional action is necessary to help strengthen the Department’s unclassified cybersecurity program Cybersecurity Framework Challenges Although not contributing directly to each of the weaknesses identified in our report we have noted challenges throughout the Department related to ensuring that cybersecurity policies and procedures are updated in a timely manner to meet Federal requirements Most notably we found that the Department’s primary cybersecurity directive Department Order 205 1B Department of Energy Cyber Security Program continues to reference outdated guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than reference its Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations which was published in April 2013 This issue was highlighted in our recent report on The Energy Information Administration’s Information Technology which Program noted that 10 controls and 37 control enhancements included in the new guidance may not have been implemented related to areas such as access controls and configuration management Similar issues were identified in our ongoing review of the cybersecurity program at a Science location In addition as noted in several previous evaluations Science had not updated its Program Cyber Security Plan since June 2010 to reflect new cybersecurity risks and changes to Federal or Department policy While we have a long-standing recommendation in this area Science officials have yet to take corrective actions potentially affecting the security posture of its program and sites Without improvements to ensure that the most current security requirements are implemented programs and sites may not keep pace with the challenges facing an ever-changing cybersecurity landscape Details of Finding Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS To improve the Department’s unclassified cybersecurity program and to correct the weaknesses identified in this report we recommend that the Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration Under Secretary for Science and Energy and Deputy Under Secretary for Management and Performance in coordination with the Chief Information Officer direct Federal and contractor programs and sites to 1 Correct through the implementation of appropriate controls the weaknesses identified during our review and highlighted in this report and 2 Fully develop and utilize POA Ms to improve performance monitoring by identifying prioritizing and tracking the progress of remediation actions for all identified cybersecurity weaknesses We recommend that the Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration Under Secretary for Science and Energy and Deputy Under Secretary for Management and Performance in coordination with the Chief Information Officer 3 Update and implement Department and program-level cybersecurity policies and procedures in a timely manner to ensure consistency with Federal requirements Recommendations Page 8 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Management concurred with each of the report’s recommendations and indicated that corrective actions had been initiated or were planned to address the issues identified in the report For example management stated that the weaknesses noted in the report have been reviewed and the appropriate Department program will identify corrective actions In addition management stated it would continue work for full implementation of the enterprise POA M tracking tool Also management commented that the Department’s revision to Order 205 1B is currently scheduled to be complete by June 2017 Further management indicated that the Office of Science Program Cyber Security Plan is undergoing final review with an expected final version to be released in the first quarter of FY 2017 AUDITOR COMMENTS Management’s comments and planned corrective actions were responsive to our recommendations Management’s comments are included in Appendix 3 Management Response and Auditor Comments Page 9 APPENDIX 1 OBJECTIVE SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Objective To determine whether the Department of Energy’s unclassified cybersecurity program adequately protected its data and information systems Scope We conducted the evaluation from February 2016 to October 2016 at 23 Department locations primarily under the responsibility of the Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration Under Secretary for Science and Energy Under Secretary for Management and Performance and the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration The focus of our evaluation was the Department’s unclassified cybersecurity program This work involved a limited review of general and application controls in areas such as security management access controls configuration management segregation of duties and contingency planning Where vulnerabilities were identified the review did not include a determination of whether the vulnerabilities were actually exploited While we did not test every possible exploit scenario we did conduct testing of various attack vectors to determine the potential for exploitation This report also considers the results of other reviews conducted by the Office of Inspector General OIG related to the Department’s cybersecurity program This evaluation was conducted under OIG project number A16TG025 Methodology To accomplish our objective we  Reviewed Federal regulations and Department directives pertaining to information and cybersecurity  Reviewed applicable standards and guidance issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the planning and management of system and information security  Obtained and analyzed documentation from Department programs and selected sites pertaining to the planning development and management of cybersecurity-related functions such as cybersecurity plans plans of action and milestones  Held discussions with officials from the Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration  Assessed controls over network operations and systems to determine the effectiveness related to safeguarding information resources from unauthorized internal and external sources Objective Scope and Methodology Page 10 APPENDIX 1  Evaluated selected Headquarters’ offices and field sites in conjunction with the annual audit of the Department’s consolidated financial statements utilizing work performed by the OIG’s contract auditor KPMG LLP KPMG OIG and KPMG work included analysis and testing of general and application controls for systems as well as internal and external vulnerability testing of networks systems and workstations In utilizing the work of KPMG we performed procedures that provided a sufficient basis for the use of that work including obtaining evidence concerning the auditors’ qualifications and independence and reviewing the work to determine that the scope quality and timing of the work performed was adequate for reliance in the context of our evaluation objectives  Conducted reviews to respond to Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014metrics established by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget The reviews were conducted at six locations across various Department programs elements  Evaluated and incorporated the results of other cybersecurity reviews performed by the OIG the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Enterprise Assessments’ Office of Cyber Assessments Because our review was limited it would not have necessarily disclosed all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at the time of our evaluation We did not solely rely on computer-processed data to satisfy our objective However computer assisted audit tools were used to perform scans of various networks and drives We validated the results of the scans by confirming the weaknesses disclosed with responsible on-site personnel and performed other procedures to satisfy ourselves as to the reliability and competence of the data produced by the tests Because of the size and complexity of the Department’s enterprise it is virtually impossible to conduct a complete comprehensive assessment of each site and organization each fiscal year As such and as permitted by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act weof 2014 utilized a variety of techniques and leveraged work performed by other oversight organizations to form an overall conclusion regarding the Department’s cybersecurity posture This report describes a number of specific problems that in our view should be addressed by responsible officials to improve the overall cybersecurity posture of the Department Because of the nonhomogeneous nature of the population users of this report are advised that testing during this evaluation was based on judgmental system selections and as such the weaknesses discovered at certain sites may not be representative of the Department’s enterprise as a whole Management waived an exit conference on October 12 2016 Objective Scope and Methodology Page 11 APPENDIX 2 RELATED REPORTS Office of Inspector General  Evaluation Report on The Department of Energy’s Unclassified Cybersecurity Program 2015 DOE-OIG-16-01 November 2015 The Department of Energy including the National Nuclear Security Administration had taken a number of positive steps over the past year to address previously identified cybersecurity weaknesses related to its unclassified cybersecurity program Specifically we noted that the Department made significant progress in remediating weaknesses identified in our fiscal year FY 2014 evaluation which resulted in the closure of 22 of 26 reported deficiencies While these actions were positive our evaluation found that the types of deficiencies identified in prior years such as issues related to security reporting vulnerability management system integrity of Web applications and account management continued to persist The weaknesses identified occurred in part because the Department had not ensured that policies and procedures were fully developed and or implemented to meet all necessary cybersecurity requirements In addition the Department had not always implemented an effective performance monitoring and risk management program Furthermore we noted that risk management processes at locations reviewed were not always effective to identify and remediate cybersecurity weaknesses  Special Report on Management Challenges at the Department of Energy – Fiscal Year 2016 OIG-SR-16-01 November 2015 Based on the work performed during FY 2015 the Office of Inspector General OIG identified seven areas including cybersecurity that remained management challenges for FY 2016  Audit Report on The Energy Information Administration’s Information Technology Program DOE-OIG-16-04 November 2015 Our review largely substantiated the allegations related to information technology IT and records management Based on these findings we determined that the Energy Information Administration EIA had not implemented a fully effective IT program In particular we identified weaknesses related to IT project management capital planning and investment control cybersecurity and records management The weaknesses identified occurred in part because EIA management had not ensured that applicable Federal and Department policies and procedures were always implemented Furthermore EIA had not implemented an effective governance structure over IT project management and cybersecurity activities Confusion regarding lines of authority adversely affected EIA’s cybersecurity project management and records management programs We noted that a number of weaknesses related to these areas may have been alleviated had EIA implemented a centralized approach to management  Audit Report on The Department of Energy’s Cybersecurity Risk Management DOE-OIG-16-02 November 2015 Our review found that although Framework progress had been made toward implementing an unclassified cybersecurity risk management framework designed to reduce the likelihood of compromise to its information systems and data additional effort was needed to ensure that operating Related Reports Page 12 APPENDIX 2 system risks are identified and systems and information are adequately secured Although certain controls had been established officials had not always thoroughly and independently assessed or monitored such controls to ensure that they were effective Furthermore programs and sites had not ensured that Authorizing Officials responsible for accepting system risk were fully aware of the risks weaknesses and vulnerabilities to the information systems under their purview The weaknesses identified existed in part because Federal requirements for securing information systems had not been fully implemented and the Department had not established sufficient oversight and communication to support its cybersecurity risk management program In addition Federal officials had not provided adequate oversight to ensure that effective risk management practices had been implemented and Department management had not always ensured that risk tolerances were established and communicated to field elements as required to help ensure the implementation of an effective risk management program  Audit Report on Cybersecurity Controls Over a Major National Nuclear Security DOE IG-0938 June 2015 Our audit revealed that Administration Information System the cybersecurity controls for a major information system at the National Nuclear Security Administration had not been adequately developed documented or implemented Specifically we identified weaknesses related to the implementation of access controls and the development and implementation of effective database change management configuration management and continuous monitoring processes The weaknesses identified occurred in part because site officials did not ensure that Federal security requirements were fully implemented In addition site officials had not established a formal service level agreement with the system’s vendor to define ongoing support requirements for the system  Evaluation Report on The Department of Energy’s Unclassified Cybersecurity Program – 2014 DOE IG-0925 October 2014 The Department had taken positive actions to improve the security and awareness of the unclassified cybersecurity program While the Department made strides to correct previously identified deficiencies additional effort is needed to ensure that the risk of operating systems are identified and that systems and information are adequately secured In particular our FY 2014 evaluation identified weaknesses related to performance metric reporting patch and configuration management processes access controls and system integrity of Web applications The issues occurred at least in part because the Department’s programs and sites had not ensured that cybersecurity policies and procedures were developed and properly implemented In addition the Department’s performance monitoring and risk management programs were not completely effective  Special Report on Management Challenges at the Department of Energy – Fiscal Year 2015 DOE IG-0924 October 2014 Based on the work performed during FY 2014 the OIG identified six areas including cybersecurity that remained management challenges for FY 2015 Related Reports Page 13 APPENDIX 2  Audit Report on The Department of Energy’s Implementation of Voice over Internet DOE IG-0915 June 2014 Our review Protocol Telecommunications Networks identified opportunities to improve the efficiency and enhance cybersecurity of the Department’s Voice over Internet Protocol VoIP networks In particular we found that programs and sites had not always applied required cybersecurity controls to VoIP networks thus increasing the risk of compromise The issues identified occurred in part because the Department had not adequately monitored the implementation of cybersecurity controls for VoIP systems Without improvements the duplicative and fragmented VoIP implementation approach that we identified could continue unabated and result in additional unnecessary expenditures of resources at programs and or sites that have not yet upgraded to VoIP systems  Special Report on the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Integrated Resource and Information System DOE IG-0905 April 2014 Our review largely substantiated the allegations received related to contract and project management We discovered that the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EERE had not effectively managed the development and implementation of the Integrated Resource and Information System IRIS In particular EERE failed to follow the Department’s structured capital planning and investment control process and had not provided effective monitoring of the project In addition EERE had not implemented key cybersecurity controls designed to protect IRIS and the network on which it resided Without a welldefined project planning and execution process that includes baselines and deliverables EERE could not ensure that significant funds spent on IRIS and other future information technology projects were used in a cost-effective manner  Special Report on The Department of Energy’s July 2013 Cyber Security Breach DOE IG-0900 December 2013 In spite of a number of early warning signs that certain personnel-related information systems were at risk the Department had not taken action necessary to protect the personally identifiable information of a large number of its past and present employees their dependents and contractors We concluded that the July 2013 incident resulted in the exfiltration of personally identifiable information on more than 104 000 individuals Our review identified a number of technical and management issues that contributed to an environment in which this breach was possible Compliance and technical problems included the frequent use of complete social security numbers as identifiers permitting direct Internet access to a highly sensitive system without adequate security controls lack of assurance that required security planning and testing activities were conducted and failure to assign the appropriate level of urgency to replace end-oflife systems We also identified numerous contributing factors related to inadequate management processes These issues created an environment in which the cybersecurity weaknesses we observed could go undetected and or uncorrected While we did not identify a single point of failure that led to the breach the combination of the technical and managerial problems we observed set the stage for individuals with malicious intent to access the system with what appeared to be relative ease Related Reports Page 14 APPENDIX 2  Special Report on Management Challenges at the Department of Energy – Fiscal Year 2014 DOE IG-0899 November 2013 Based on the work performed during FY 2013 the OIG identified eight areas including cybersecurity that remained management challenges for the Department in FY 2014  Evaluation Report on The Department of Energy’s Unclassified Cyber Security Program – 2013 DOE IG-0897 October 2013 The Department had taken a number of positive steps over the past year to correct cybersecurity weaknesses related to its unclassified information systems In spite of these efforts we found that significant weaknesses and associated vulnerabilities continued to expose the Department’s unclassified information systems to a higher-than-necessary risk of compromise Our testing revealed various weaknesses related to security reporting access controls patch management system integrity configuration management segregation of duties and security management In total we discovered 29 new weaknesses and confirmed that 10 weaknesses from the prior year’s review had not been resolved The weaknesses we identified occurred in part because Department elements had not ensured that policies and procedures were fully developed and implemented to meet all necessary cybersecurity requirements In addition the Department continued to operate a less than fully effective performance monitoring and risk management program Absent improvements to its unclassified cybersecurity program the Department’s information and systems will continue to be at a higher-than-necessary risk of compromise Government Accountability Office  INFORMATION SECURITY Agencies Need to Improve Controls over Selected High GAO-16-501 May 2016 Impact Systems  INFORMATION SECURITY Department of Education and Other Federal Agencies Need to Better Implement Controls GAO-16-228T November 2015  INFORMATION SECURITY Federal Agencies Need to Better Protect Sensitive Data GAO-16-194T November 2015  FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY Agencies Need to Correct Weaknesses and Fully Implement Security Programs GAO-15-714 September 2015  INFORMATION SECURITY Cyber Threats and Data Breaches Illustrate Need for GAO-15-758T July 2015 Stronger Controls across Federal Agencies  CYBERSECURITY Actions Needed to Address Challenges Facing Federal Systems GAO-15-573T April 2015  INFORMATION SECURITY Agencies Need to Improve Oversight of Contractor Controls GAO-14-612 August 2014 Related Reports Page 15 APPENDIX 2  CYBERSECURITY Recent Data Breaches Illustrate Need for Strong Controls across GAO-15-725T June 2015 Federal Agencies  INFORMATION SECURITY Federal Agencies Need to Enhance Responses to Data Breaches GAO-14-487T April 2014  INFORMATION SECURITY Agencies Need to Improve Cyber Incident Response GAO-14-354 April 2014 Practices Related Reports Page 16 APPENDIX 3 MANAGEMENT COMMENTS Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 October 6 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR R HASS ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL I r ff All ta FROM MICHAEL NI JOHNSON x-f CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER SUBJECT Inspector General s Draft Report on The Department of Energy s Unclassi ed Cybersecurity Program 2016 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Evaluation Report The Department of Energy's Unclassi ed Cybersecurity Program 2015 The Department including the National Nuclear Security Administration has undertaken a number of actions over the past year to address cybersecurity program weaknesses previously noted by the Office of the Inspector General llGl Despite these improvements cyber-attacks from highly-capable malicious actors continue to increase in their complexity frequency and aggression The Department of Energy Cyber Strategy which was issued in 2015 is being implemented and the Of ce of the Chief Information Of cer 000 is further addressing enterprise cybersecurity through a distributed standards based shared-risk management framework The speci c assessments in this report will assist the CICID and Program Of ces in determining appropriate actions to resolve specific ndings and improve cybersecurity across the Department The de ciencies identi ed from the IG assessment include ongoing issues that have been noted in prior years including issues related to vulnerability management system integrity of Web applications access controls and segregation of duties and configuration management These known areas of weakness will continue to be addressed at all organizational levels to ensure that our information assets and systems are adequately protected from harm In regards to the speci c recommendations in this draft report the Department responds as follows Recommendation 1 Correct through the impiemen totion of appropriate controls the weaknesses identified within this report Response Concur The weaknesses noted in this report have been reviewed and corrective actions will be identified by the appropriate DOE Program and established in Plans of Action and Milestone The responsible Program will report the status of corrective actions l 'inlwl wrr' Any le an usher Management Comments Page 17 APPENDIX 3 against the milestones and estimated completion dates through quarterly POAELM reporting The DOE CICID will confirm that weaknesses noted in this report are recorded and tracked as on the quarterly reports OCID anticipates that the Programs will establish and begin reporting on the in their first quarter scal year FY 201 reports The OCID will also include applicable findings in its program-level report for first quarter Pl 201 Estimated Completion Date December 31 2016 Recommendation 2 Fully develop and utilize M5 to improve performance monitoring by iden ti ling prioritizing and tracking the progress of remediation actions for all identified cybersecurlty weaknesses Response Concur The Program Offices monitor for all subordinate organizations through internal processes that are to be documented in Risk Management Implementation Plans lRl'v'lIPs per DUE Order 205 18 The are part of contractor assurance systems used to assess whether risk is being identified and mitigated to an acceptable level in accordance with the mission The Department continues to develop and implement processes that provide greater consistency and accuracy in reported enterprise data The Enterprise Cyber Governance System system provides a tool for enterprise management and reporting allows for real-time update to status as well as a centralized repository for cybersecurity weakness remediation activities and provides tools that sites and Program Offices can use to identify weaknesses better manage remediation activities and prioritize actions Work is continuingfor full implementation of ECGS for enterprise tracking Estimated Completion Date December 31 2016 Recommendation 3 Update and implement Department and program level cybersecurity policies and procedures in a timely manner to ensure consistency with Federal reauirem en ts Response Co ncur The Department s cybersecurity program order DOE Order 205 18 is currently scheduled for review and revision with an estimated completion date ofJune 2017' Additionally the Office of Science Program Cyber Security Plan is currently undergoing review with an expected final version to be released the first quarter of Pl 201 Estimated Completion Date June 30 2017 Management Comments Page 18 APPENDIX 3 If you have any questionS or need additional information please contact Ms Renee Forney tting Deputy Chief Information Officer for Cybersecurity at 202 586 6060 and Mr Allan Manuel DeputyI CID for Enterprise Policy Portfolio Management and Governance at 202-586-0166 Management Comments Page 19 FEEDBACK The Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its products We aim to make our reports as responsive as possible and ask you to consider sharing your thoughts with us Please send your comments suggestions and feedback to OIG Reports@hq doe gov and include your name contact information and the report number You may also mail comments to us Office of Inspector General IG-12 Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 If you want to discuss this report or your comments with a member of the Office of Inspector General staff please contact our office at 202 253-2162