diff --git a/_includes/footer.html b/_includes/footer.html index 3b7cb5121..4735d55bb 100755 --- a/_includes/footer.html +++ b/_includes/footer.html @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@

Follow Us

@@ -118,8 +118,8 @@

Keep Up To Date

> + diff --git a/_layouts/agency-authorization.html b/_layouts/agency-authorization.html index 43f4bbe87..f35323fa1 100644 --- a/_layouts/agency-authorization.html +++ b/_layouts/agency-authorization.html @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@

Full Security Assessment

Agency Authorization Process

-

The next step is the Agency Authorization Process. During this step, the agency conducts a security authorization package review, which may include a SAR debrief with the FedRAMP PMO. Depending on the results of the agency’s review, CSP remediation may be required. Additionally, the agency will implement, test, and document customer responsible controls during this phase. Finally, the agency performs a risk analysis, accepts risk, and issues an ATO. This decision is based on the agency’s risk tolerance. Once an agency provides an ATO letter for the use of the CSO, the following actions take place to close out this step:

+

The next step is the Agency Authorization Process. During this step, the agency conducts a security authorization package review, which may include a SAR debrief. Depending on the results of the agency’s review, CSP remediation may be required. During this phase, the agency may implement, document, and test customer responsible controls. Alternatively, the agency may choose to perform these steps after issuing the ATO. Finally, the agency performs a risk analysis, accepts risk, and issues an ATO. This decision is based on the agency’s risk tolerance. Once an agency provides an ATO letter for the use of the CSO, the following actions take place to close out this step:

-
-
- -
-
-

Agency Authorization - Roles and Responsibilities for FedRAMP, CSPs, and Agencies

-

This document provides a summary of the roles and responsibilities of the agency, CSP, and FedRAMP PMO during the Agency Authorization process.

-

Download [PDF - 933KB]

-
-
-
@@ -272,9 +261,9 @@

FedRAMP Authorization Boundary Guidance

-

FedRAMP Guide for Multi-Agency Continuous Monitoring

+

FedRAMP Colllaborative ConMon Quick Guide

This document provides guidance to agencies and CSPs to assist with a framework for collaboration when managing Agency ATOs.

-

Download [PDF - 413KB]

+

Download [PDF - 413KB]

@@ -283,9 +272,9 @@

FedRAMP Guide for Multi-Agency Continuous Monitoring

-

FedRAMP Tailored Website

-

Provides guidance and templates for FedRAMP Tailored, a simple, condensed approach to the Authorization process for Low-Impact Software-as-a-Service (LI-SaaS) applications.

-

Visit Website

+

FedRAMP Baselines

+

This web page helps stakeholders understand the FedRAMP Baselines and Impact Levels for FedRAMP Authorizations

+

Visit Website

diff --git a/_layouts/assessor-page.html b/_layouts/assessor-page.html index 0b2d238c8..bcd244eab 100644 --- a/_layouts/assessor-page.html +++ b/_layouts/assessor-page.html @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@

Partnering with FedRAMP®

As independent third parties, they perform initial and periodic assessments of cloud systems based on federal security requirements. The federal government uses 3PAO assessments as the basis for making informed, risk-based authorization decisions for the use of cloud products and services. During FedRAMP assessments, 3PAOs produce a Readiness Assessment Report (RAR), which is required for the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) Authorization process and optional but highly recommended for the Agency Authorization process, and/or a Security Assessment Plan (SAP) and Security Assessment Report (SAR) that is submitted for authorization to a government Authorizing Official (AO).

-

A list of FedRAMP recognized Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) can be found on the FedRAMP Marketplace. +

A list of FedRAMP recognized Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) can be found on the FedRAMP Marketplace.

@@ -73,10 +73,10 @@

Resources for Assessors

3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards

-

The 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards provides guidance for 3PAOs on demonstrating the quality, independence, and FedRAMP knowledge required as they perform security assessments on cloud systems.

+

FedRAMP created a conformity assessment process to recognize third party assessment organizations (3PAOs) through accreditation by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). This process ensures 3PAOs meet the necessary quality, independence, and FedRAMP knowledge requirements, to perform independent security assessments required by FedRAMP. To maintain recognition, 3PAOs must continue to demonstrate independence, quality, and FedRAMP knowledge as they perform security assessments on cloud systems.

[File Info: PDF - 458KB]

@@ -85,8 +85,8 @@

3PAO Obligations and Performance Standa
-

FedRAMP Readiness Assessments: A Guide for 3PAOs

-

The FedRAMP Readiness Assessments: A Guide for 3PAOs provides 3PAOs with guidance on how best to utilize the RAR. It provides a shared understanding of the RAR’s intent, process, and best practices.

+

3PAO Readiness Assessment Report Guide

+

FedRAMP created the Readiness Assessment Report Guide to assist 3PAOs and cloud service providers on how to best utilize the FedRAMP Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) templates to confirm the full implementation of the CSO’s technical capabilities, which is required for a FedRAMP Readiness Assessment to be successful. This also helps 3PAOs and CSPs understand the rigor that FedRAMP requires for assessments.

[File Info: PDF - 342KB]

Download diff --git a/_layouts/baselines.html b/_layouts/baselines.html index 99857506e..d567953df 100644 --- a/_layouts/baselines.html +++ b/_layouts/baselines.html @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@

High Impact Level

-

CSPs should use the FedRAMP FIPS 199 Categorization Template (Attachment 10) in the SSP along with the guidance of NIST Special Publication 800-60 volume 2 Revision 1 to correctly categorize their system based on the types of information processed, stored, and transmitted on their systems. Customer agencies are expected to perform a separate FIPS 199 analysis for their own data hosted in the CSP’s cloud environment.

+

CSPs should use the FedRAMP FIPS 199 Categorization Template (Appendix K) in the SSP along with the guidance of NIST Special Publication 800-60 volume 2 Revision 1 to correctly categorize their system based on the types of information processed, stored, and transmitted on their systems. Customer agencies are expected to perform a separate FIPS 199 analysis for their own data hosted in the CSP’s cloud environment.

CSPs can achieve a FedRAMP Authorized designation via the Agency Path for any of the baselines (LI-SaaS, Low, Moderate, High). CSPs can only pursue a FedRAMP Authorized designation via the JAB Path for the Moderate and High baselines.

diff --git a/_layouts/cloud-service-page.html b/_layouts/cloud-service-page.html index deaf026c0..7eab57803 100644 --- a/_layouts/cloud-service-page.html +++ b/_layouts/cloud-service-page.html @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@

CSP Authorization Playbook

The CSP Authorization Playbook: Getting Started with FedRAMP provides CSPs with an overview of how to develop an authorization strategy, the types of authorizations, and important considerations for their CSOs when working with FedRAMP.

[File Info: PDF - 959KB]

diff --git a/_layouts/faqs.html b/_layouts/faqs.html index cc4f2ff7e..2134ec33d 100644 --- a/_layouts/faqs.html +++ b/_layouts/faqs.html @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@

aria-controls="gen-fedramps-value"> What is FedRAMP’s value to the federal government?

-

FedRAMP eliminates duplicative efforts by providing a common security framework. Agencies review their security requirements against a standardized baseline. A Cloud Service Provider (CSP) goes through the authorization process once, and after achieving an authorization for their Cloud Service Offering (CSO), the security package can be reused by any federal agency.

+

FedRAMP eliminates duplicative efforts by providing a common security framework. Agencies review their security requirements against a standardized baseline. A cloud service provider (CSP) goes through the authorization process once, and after achieving an authorization for their cloud service offering (CSO), the security package can be reused by any federal agency.

FedRAMP enables the federal government to accelerate the adoption of cloud computing by creating transparent standards and processes for security authorizations and allowing agencies to leverage security authorizations on a government-wide scale.

@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@

aria-controls="gen-fedramp-guidance"> Where are FedRAMP guidance documents and templates maintained? How is the FedRAMP community notified of new documents posted for public comment?

-

All official FedRAMP documentation is maintained on FedRAMP.gov. Opportunities for large-scale public comment periods will be messaged via a number of channels and methods, including the FedRAMP.gov website, "Focus on FedRAMP" blog, or by subscribing to FedRAMP email updates.

+

All official FedRAMP documentation is maintained on FedRAMP.gov. Opportunities for large-scale public comment periods will be messaged via a number of channels and methods. To ensure you are notified of these opportunities, subscribe to the FedRAMP distribution list for updates. Be sure to follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @FedRAMP to get notifications on other program updates.

-

FedRAMP is FISMA for the cloud. Per FISMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is responsible for establishing “policies which shall set the framework for information technology standards for the Federal Government.” Based on this law, NIST developed the Risk Management Framework .

+

FedRAMP is FISMA for the cloud. Per FISMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is responsible for establishing “policies which shall set the framework for information technology standards for the Federal Government”. Based on this law, NIST developed the Risk Management Framework .

Both FedRAMP and FISMA use the NIST SP 800-53 security controls. The FedRAMP security controls are based on NIST SP 800-53 baselines and contain controls, parameters and guidance above the NIST baseline that address the unique elements of cloud computing.

@@ -143,8 +143,7 @@

aria-controls="gen-security-controls"> Who is responsible for the cloud security controls?

-

There is a shared security responsibility model when using cloud products. Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) and agencies (customers) both assume important security roles and responsibilities to ensure data is protected within cloud environments. CSPs are required to submit a Control Implementation Summary (CIS) workbook as an attachment to the System Secruity Plan (SSP). The CIS workbook identifies security controls that the CSP is responsible for implementing, security controls that the agency (customer) is responsible for implementing, security controls where there is a shared CSP/agency responsibility, and security controls that are inherited from an underlying FedRAMP Authorized Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS). The CIS workbook also includes a Customer Responsibility Matrix (CRM) worksheet tab. CSPs must use the CRM to describe the specific elements of each control where the responsibility lies with the customer. Further details are also provided within the CSP’s SSP.

-

FedRAMP provides two CIS Workbook templates: one for Low and Moderate systems and one for High systems. Both are available on FedRAMP.gov’s Documents & Templates page.

+

There is a shared security responsibility model when using cloud products. Cloud service providers (CSPs) and customers (agencies or leveraging CSPs) both assume important security roles and responsibilities to ensure data is protected within cloud environments. CSPs are required to submit a Control Implementation Summary/Customer Responsibility Matrix (CIS/CRM) workbook as Appendix J to the System Security Plan (SSP). The CIS/CRM workbook identifies security controls that the CSP is responsible for implementing, security controls that the customer is responsible for implementing, security controls where there is a shared CSP/customer responsibility, and security controls that are inherited from an underlying FedRAMP Authorized Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS). CSPs use the CRM to describe the specific elements of each control where the responsibility lies with the customer.

@@ -153,10 +152,10 @@

Federal Agencies

+ aria-controls="fa-approvers"> Who can sign a FedRAMP Package Access Request Form for an agency?

-

The FedRAMP approver that can sign a Package Access Request Form [PDF - 278KB] is either the agency’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Authorizing Official (AO), Authorizing Official Designated Representative (AODR) or Designated Approving Authority (DAA). If the form is signed by a DAA, that person must be at a level that has the authority to grant an Authority to Operate (ATO) for an information system.

+

The FedRAMP approver that can sign a Package Access Request Form is either the agency’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Authorizing Official (AO), Authorizing Official Designated Representative (AODR) or Designated Approving Authority (DAA). If the form is signed by a DAA, that person must be at a level that has the authority to grant an Authority to Operate (ATO) for an information system.

-

If a Cloud Service Offering (CSO) is listed as FedRAMP Authorized on the FedRAMP Marketplace, it has successfully completed the FedRAMP Authorization process with the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or a federal agency. The FedRAMP Authorized designation indicates FedRAMP requirements are being met and a CSO’s security package is available for agency reuse. This means that any agency can request access to the security package for a FedRAMP Authorized CSO, review the security package, and issue their own Authority to Operate (ATO) for the product.

-

When reusing FedRAMP security packages, agencies should complete and sign the FedRAMP Package Access Request Form [PDF - 278KB] and if the requestor is not a federal employee they must also complete the associated Non-Disclosure Agreement for the FedRAMP Authorized CSO, conduct a package review and risk analysis, understand and implement customer responsibilities, issue an ATO and send ATO letters to info@fedramp.gov, and perform continuous monitoring responsibilities. More guidance can be found in the Reusing Authorizations for Cloud Products Quick Guide [PDF - 72KB].

+

If a Cloud Service Offering (CSO) is listed as FedRAMP Authorized on the FedRAMP Marketplace, it has successfully completed the FedRAMP authorization process with the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or a federal agency. The FedRAMP Authorized designation indicates FedRAMP requirements are being met and a CSO’s security package is available for agency reuse. This means that any agency can request access to the security package for a FedRAMP Authorized CSO, review the security package, and issue their own Authority to Operate (ATO) for the product.More information on how to reuse an existing security package can be found in the FedRAMP Reusing Authorizations for Cloud Products Quick Guide.

+ aria-controls="fa-secure-repo-folders"> How can I ensure I am notified when changes are made to specific folders in the FedRAMP Secure Repository?

-
-

As a registered OMB MAX user, you have the ability to “watch” a page. To watch a page, click the icon labeled “watchers” in the upper-right corner of the screen. When a page is being watched, you will be notified via email of changes made to that page. This can be particularly helpful for Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), agencies, or Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) as they anticipate the uploading of key documents, like a System Security Plan (SSP) or Security Assessment Report (SAR). To stop watching a page, simply click again on the icon in the upper-right corner of the screen.

+
+

As a registered OMB MAX/USDA Connect user, you have the ability to “Watch” a page. To watch a page, navigate to a folder within a package and click the icon labeled “Watchers” in the upper-right corner of the screen. Oncea drop-down opens, click “Watch This Page”. When a page is being watched, you will be notified via email of changes made to that page. This can be particularly helpful for cloud service providers (CSPs), agencies, or third party assessment organizations (3PAOs) as they anticipate the uploading of key documents, like a system security plan (SSP) or security assessment report (SAR). To stop watching a page, simply click again on the icon in the upper-right corner of the screen to open a dropdown and click “Stop Watching This Page”.

+ aria-controls="fa-60-day-access"> How do you request an extension beyond the 60-day access window for Connect.gov or obtain additional package permissions?

-

Simply email info@fedramp.gov to request access extensions. Agencies can work directly with Cloud Service Providers (CSP) to obtain a copy of the package and request permissions to save, print, email, post, publish, or reproduce. If your agency has already issued an Authority to Operate (ATO) you can submit the ATO to info@fedramp.gov and receive permanent access to the package as long as an ATO is on file with the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO).

+

Simply email info@fedramp.gov to request access extensions. If your agency has issued an Authority to Operate (ATO) for the cloud service offering (CSO), you can submit the ATO to ato-letter@fedramp.gov and receive permanent access to the package as long as an ATO is on file with the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO).

-

An Initial Agency Partner or initial authorizing agency refers to the first agency to grant an Authority to Operate (ATO) using FedRAMP standards and baselines for the Cloud Service Offering (CSO). Some stakeholders use the term "Agency Sponsor.” FedRAMP does not recognize the concept of an agency sponsor because the ATO granted by the initial authorizing agency is not a government-wide risk acceptance. As described in FedRAMP's Reuse Quick Guide, OMB Circular A-130 requires agencies to individually authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk. Each agency that wishes to use the CSO will conduct its own risk review of the authorization package and grant its own ATO.

+

An Initial Agency Partner or initial authorizing agency refers to the first agency to grant an Authority to Operate (ATO) using FedRAMP standards and baselines for the Cloud Service Offering (CSO). Some stakeholders use the term "Agency Sponsor.” FedRAMP does not recognize the concept of an agency sponsor because the ATO granted by the initial authorizing agency is not a government-wide risk acceptance. As described in FedRAMP's Reuse Quick Guide, OMB Circular A-130 requires agencies to individually authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk. Each agency that wishes to use the CSO will conduct its own risk review of the authorization package and grant its own ATO.

It depends on the quality of the authorization package. Because the initial authorizing agency is the first agency to review the authorization package, the process for getting to an informed risk-based decision may take longer and require more effort if there are aspects of the authorization package that are unclear, incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent.

-

The FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) provides guidance to Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) and Third Party Assessors (3PAOs) on how to deliver a high quality authorization package, but if the agency team is unable to determine the actual security posture of the Cloud Service Offering (CSO) due to poor quality, the agency will provide feedback. The feedback may result in modifications to the package deliverables and/or additional testing, and additional review cycles. +

The FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) provides guidance to Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) and third party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) on how to deliver a high quality authorization package, but if the agency team is unable to determine the actual security posture of the cloud service offering (CSO) due to poor quality, the agency will provide feedback. The feedback may result in modifications to the package deliverables and/or additional testing, and additional review cycles.

+ aria-controls="fa-performing-conmon"> As the initial authorizing agency, are we responsible for performing continuous monitoring (ConMon) oversight on behalf of other leveraging agencies?

-

No. It is not the initial authorizing agency’s responsibility to conduct ConMon oversight on behalf of all other agencies. OMB Circular A-130 requires federal agencies to implement the Risk Management Framework (RMF) described in NIST SP 800-37. The RMF process includes a Monitor step. The purpose of this step is to maintain ongoing situational awareness about the security posture of the system in support of risk management decisions. Each agency that issues an ATO or ATU for a cloud offering must review the Cloud Service Provider’s (CSP’s) ConMon activities to ensure the security posture remains sufficient for its own use and supports an ongoing authorization. This includes reviewing the monthly Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M), approving deviation requests and significant change requests, and reviewing the results of the annual assessment. The FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) encourages CSPs who have more than one customer agency to streamline the ConMon process and potentially minimize duplicative efforts in a way that helps each agency still perform their due diligence related to ConMon. The PMO developed a recommended Collaborative ConMon approach. This approach is described in the Collaborative ConMon Quick Guide. Collaborative ConMon benefits agencies by allowing them to share responsibility for ConMon oversight, and it benefits the CSP by creating a central forum for addressing questions and achieving consensus related to deviation requests, significant change requests and the annual assessment - versus having to coordinate with each agency separately. -

+

No. It is not the initial authorizing agency’s responsibility to conduct ConMon oversight on behalf of all other agencies. OMB Circular A-130 requires federal agencies to implement the Risk Management Framework (RMF) described in NIST SP 800-37 . The RMF process includes a Monitor step. The purpose of this step is to maintain ongoing situational awareness about the security posture of the system in support of risk management decisions. Each agency that issues an ATO or ATU for a cloud offering must review the cloud service provider’s (CSP’s) ConMon activities to ensure the security posture remains sufficient for its own use and supports an ongoing authorization. This includes reviewing the monthly Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M), approving deviation requests and significant change requests, and reviewing the results of the annual assessment. With the release of the FedRAMP Rev 5 baselines, security control CA-7 requires CSPs with more than one customer agency to implement collaborative ConMon. This approach is intended to streamline the ConMon process and potentially minimize duplicative efforts in a way that helps each agency still perform their due diligence related to ConMon. The PMO developed a recommended Collaborative ConMon approach, which is described in the FedRAMP Collaborative ConMon Quick Guide. Collaborative ConMon benefits agencies by allowing them to share responsibility for ConMon oversight, and it benefits the CSP by creating a central forum for addressing questions and achieving consensus related to deviation requests, significant change requests and the annual assessment - versus having to coordinate with each agency separately.

-

NIST SP 800-37 describes the ATO and ATU as very similar in that they both are the mechanisms for documenting and accepting risk of information systems, and approving the use of the system by the agency. ATUs are intended to be used for shared systems, but still document accepting risk and approving use (based on an external security assessment). Though FedRAMP accepts both ATOs and ATUs, there must be at least one ATO on file for the Cloud Service Offering (CSO) in order for FedRAMP to accept an ATU.

+

NIST SP 800-37 describes the ATO and ATU as very similar in that they both are the mechanisms for documenting and accepting risk of information systems, and approving the use of the system by the agency. ATUs are intended to be used for shared systems, but still document accepting risk and approving use (based on an external security assessment). Though FedRAMP accepts both ATOs and ATUs, there must be at least one ATO on file for the cloud service offering (CSO) in order for FedRAMP to accept an ATU.

+ aria-controls="fa-stop-cso"> What happens if my agency decides to stop using the cloud service offering (CSO)?

-

Agencies should first notify the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) that they plan to rescind their Authorization to Operate (ATO) as they no longer are using the service. After they have notified the CSP, the agency should send an email to info@fedramp.gov, CCing their CSP, which notifies the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) that the service is no longer in use at the agency, and indicates the agency will rescind the ATO letter by a specific date. +

Agencies should first notify the cloud service provider (CSP) that they plan to rescind their Authorization to Operate (ATO) as they no longer are using the service. After they have notified the CSP, the agency should send an email to info@fedramp.gov, CCing their CSP, which notifies the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) that the service is no longer in use at the agency, and indicates the agency will rescind the ATO letter by a specific date.

+ aria-controls="fa-lose-agency-customer"> What happens if a cloud service offering (CSO) loses its agency customers?

A CSO must have at least one active Authorization to Operate (ATO) from a federal agency on file with the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) to maintain an Authorized designation on the FedRAMP Marketplace. Having an ATO on file with FedRAMP ensures at least one agency is conducting oversight of the Cloud Service Provider’s (CSPs) Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) activities.

-

If a CSP's service offering loses its only ATO on file with FedRAMP, the service offering may remain listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as FedRAMP Ready for a maximum of 12 months while the CSP works to obtain a new ATO from a federal agency. If a new ATO is obtained during this period, the CSO will regain its FedRAMP Authorized designation. If an ATO is not achieved within 12 months, the CSP may pursue a Readiness Assessment Report to maintain its FedRAMP Ready designation, or transition to In Process by fulfilling the requirements described in FedRAMP’s Marketplace guidance. This provision does not apply to service offerings that lose their only ATO due to lack of maintaining an acceptable security posture.

-

Please review page 8 of FedRAMP’s Marketplace Designations for Cloud Service Providers for a full explanation of the provision for CSPs that lose their only ATO on file.

+

If a CSP's service offering loses its only ATO on file with FedRAMP, the service offering may remain listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as FedRAMP Ready for a maximum of 12 months while the CSP works to obtain a new ATO from a federal agency. If a new ATO is obtained during this period, the CSO will regain its FedRAMP Authorized designation. If an ATO is not achieved within 12 months, the CSP may maintain its FedRAMP Ready designation by working with a FedRAMP-recognized Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) to complete a Readiness Assessment of its service offering.to. Alternatively, the CSP may transition to In Process by fulfilling the requirements described in FedRAMP’s Marketplace guidance. This provision does not apply to service offerings that lose their only ATO due to lack of maintaining an acceptable security posture.

+

Please review the About FedRAMP Marketplace page for a full explanation of the provision for CSPs that lose their only ATO on file.

+ aria-controls="csp-listed-marketplace"> How does a cloud service provider (CSP) get listed on FedRAMP’s Marketplace?

There are three listing designations available on the FedRAMP Marketplace: FedRAMP Ready, In Process, or Authorized.

    -
  • FedRAMP Ready indicates that a Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) attests to a CSP’s readiness for the authorization process, and that a Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) has been reviewed and approved by the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO). The RAR documents the CSP’s capability to meet FedRAMP security requirements.
  • -
  • In Process is a designation provided to CSPs that are actively working toward a FedRAMP Authorization with either the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or a federal agency.
  • -
  • The Authorized designation is provided to CSPs that have successfully completed the FedRAMP Authorization process with the JAB or a federal agency. This designation indicates the CSPs security package is available for agency review and reuse. Private cloud offerings are not listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as they do not meet the intent of “do once, use many times” and thus the security packages are not considered reusable.
  • +
  • FedRAMP Ready indicates that a third party assessment organization (3PAO) attests to a CSP’s readiness for the authorization process, and that a FedRAMP Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) has been reviewed and approved by the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO). The RAR documents the CSP’s capability to meet FedRAMP security requirements.
  • +
  • FedRAMP In Process is a designation provided to CSPs that are actively working toward a FedRAMP authorization with either the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or a federal agency.
  • +
  • The FedRAMP Authorized designation is provided to CSPs that have successfully completed the FedRAMP authorization process with the JAB or a federal agency. This designation indicates the CSPs security package is available for agency review and reuse. Private cloud offerings are not listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as they do not meet the intent of “do once, use many times” and thus the security packages are not considered reusable.

More detail about these designations and how to be listed on the Marketplace can be found on the About FedRAMP Marketplace page.

+ aria-controls="csp-get-started"> My company is looking to obtain FedRAMP authorization for one of our existing cloud products. I have executive support and an agency partner. How do I get started?

-

As a first step, please complete the FedRAMP Program Management Office’s (PMO’s) Cloud Service Provider (CSP) Information Form to notify our team of your intent to pursue FedRAMP Authorization with a federal agency and to initiate scheduling of an intake call with the PMO. During this call, the PMO will walk you through the Agency Authorization process. Additionally, please review the Get Authorized: Agency page and the FedRAMP Agency Authorization Playbook [PDF - 1.24MB]. This document provides an overview of every aspect of the Agency Authorization process, including roles and responsibilities for the CSP and agency at each step. If you have any questions after reviewing guidance materials, please forward them to info@fedramp.gov.

+

As a first step, please complete the FedRAMP Cloud Service Provider (CSP) Information Form to notify the FedRAMP team of your intent to pursue a FedRAMP authorization with a federal agency. Submission of the form will generate a FedRAMP Package ID for your cloud offering. In addition, you will receive an email that describes the next steps in the authorization process, along with links to a number of helpful resources.

+ aria-controls="csp-fedramp-logo"> What are the requirements to use the FedRAMP logo on a cloud service providers (CSPs) marketing materials?

+ aria-controls="csp-MFA-tool"> Does a cloud service provider (CSP) need to implement a FIPS-validated multi-factor authentication (MFA) tool prior to a cloud service offering (CSO) achieving FedRAMP Ready or can it be added to the Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) and addressed later?

To achieve a FedRAMP Ready designation, a CSO’s MFA solution must comply with NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-63B, which requires the use of FIPS 140 validated encryption for MFA tools. While agencies may accept risk by allowing a CSP to work through POA&M actions to achieve compliance with NIST SP 800-63B requirements, a Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) has no authorizing official to accept and approve risk for open POA&Ms. A FedRAMP Ready designation indicates to agencies that a cloud service can be authorized without significant risk or delay due to noncompliance. The use of FIPS 140 validated cryptographic modules, where encryption is required, is a federal mandate, as indicated in the RAR template. This applies to MFA tools as well.

The FedRAMP PMO has provided additional resources below that apply to all MFA tools, where required (authenticators and verifiers).

MFA resources: -

  • 1. The NSA published a paper last year,Selecting Secure Multi-factor Authentication Solutions, addressing popular MFA offerings and their status on meeting NIST requirements; CSPs may find this helpful to assist in identifying FIPS 140 validated MFA solutions. As indicated, this is not a FedRAMP developed document and FedRAMP does not control the currency of the information.
  • -
  • 2. There are two notable exceptions to the FIPS 140 requirement for authenticators in SP 800-63. These are:
  • +
  • 1. There are two notable exceptions to the FIPS 140 requirement for authenticators in SP 800-63. These are:
    • On low baseline systems, FIPS 140 validated crypto modules are only required for MFA verifiers, not authenticators.
    • On Moderate baseline systems, user-provided (“bring-your-own”) authenticators are exempt from having to meet FIPS 140 requirements, particularly in the government-to-public use case. Note: This exemption does not apply to CSP personnel. The FIPS 140 requirement still applies to CSP employee and contractor authenticators.
    -
  • 3. NIST SP 800-63 is a complex set of documents that should be reviewed by any organization implementing MFA for a government system. In addition to the base standards document, NIST provides a FAQ and implementation resources.
  • +
  • 2. NIST SP 800-63 is a complex set of documents that should be reviewed by any organization implementing MFA for a government system. In addition to the base standards document, NIST provides additional resources that may be helpful..
  • @@ -305,35 +306,35 @@

    Third Party Assessors

    + aria-controls="tpa-what-is"> What is a third party assessment organization (3PAO)?

    -

    3PAOs play a critical role in the authorization process by assessing the security of a Cloud Service Offering (CSO). As independent third parties, they perform initial and periodic assessments of cloud systems to ensure they meet FedRAMP requirements. The federal government uses 3PAO assessments as the basis for making informed, risk-based authorization decisions for the use of cloud products and services. 3PAOs are accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). A list of FedRAMP recognized 3PAOs can be found on the FedRAMP Marketplace under the “Assessors” tab.

    -

    In addition to the critical role that 3PAOs play in assessing cloud services, some Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) use 3PAOs as consultants to help prepare security documentation or provide security advisory services. When CSPs use 3PAO advisors, they must select a different 3PAO to conduct an assessment of their cloud service to ensure that the assessor maintains impartiality.

    +

    3PAOs play a critical role in the authorization process by assessing the security of a cloud service offering (CSO). As independent third parties, they perform initial and periodic assessments of cloud systems to ensure they meet FedRAMP requirements. The federal government uses 3PAO assessments as the basis for making informed, risk-based authorization decisions for the use of cloud products and services. 3PAOs are accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). A list of FedRAMP recognized 3PAOs can be found on the FedRAMP Marketplace under the “Assessors” tab.

    +

    In addition to the critical role that 3PAOs play in assessing cloud services, some cloud service providers (CSPs) use 3PAOs as consultants to help prepare security documentation or provide security advisory services. When CSPs use 3PAO advisors, they must select a different 3PAO to conduct an assessment of their cloud service to ensure that the assessor maintains impartiality.

    + aria-controls="tpa-validated"> How does a company become a FedRAMP recognized third party assessment organization (3PAO)? How is the independence and quality of a 3PAO validated?

    -

    In order to become a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) must perform an initial assessment of the 3PAO and provide an initial assessment recommendation to FedRAMP for approval. For a 3PAO to maintain its FedRAMP recognition, A2LA must perform a favorable annual review and a full on-site reassessment every two years. A2LA assessments ensure 3PAOs meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020 (as revised) and FedRAMP-specific knowledge requirements. More information on becoming an accredited 3PAO may be found on the A2LA website .

    +

    In order to become a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) must perform an initial assessment of the 3PAO and provide an initial assessment recommendation to FedRAMP for approval. For a 3PAO to maintain its FedRAMP recognition, A2LA must perform a favorable annual review and a full on-site reassessment every two years. A2LA assessments ensure 3PAOs meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020 (as revised) and FedRAMP-specific knowledge requirements. More information on becoming an accredited 3PAO may be found on the A2LA website .

    + aria-controls="tpa-csps-recognized"> Are cloud service providers (CSPs) required to use a FedRAMP recognized third party assessment organization (3PAO)?

    -

    For the JAB Authorization process, the assessment organization must be a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO. For the Agency Authorization process, a 3PAO is recommended, but not required. A CSP’s agency partner may choose to use their own Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) organization to assess the system. If an agency chooses to use their own IV&V team, they must submit an attestation regarding the team’s independence, and the IV&V team must use FedRAMP templates for the assessment and follow all FedRAMP requirements.

    +

    For the JAB Authorization process, the assessment organization must be a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO.For the Agency Authorization process, a 3PAO is recommended, but not required. A CSP’s agency partner may choose to use their own independent assessment organization to assess the system. If an agency chooses to use their own independent assessment organization, the Agency Authorizing Official must submit an attestation regarding the organization’s impartiality and independence. The independent assessment organization must use the most current FedRAMP templates for the assessment and follow all FedRAMP requirements.

    + aria-controls="tpa-continuous-monitoring"> What is the role of the third party assessment organization (3PAO) in continuous monitoring?

    -

    For the JAB Authorization process, Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) must use a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO for annual assessments of its cloud system and to evaluate the impact of some changes a CSP makes to its cloud system. For the Agency Authorization process, a 3PAO is recommended, but not required. Additionally, some CSPs may acquire 3PAO services for monthly Continuous Monitoring.

    +

    For the FedRAMP JAB Authorization process, cloud service providers (CSPs) must use a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO for annual assessments of its cloud offering and to evaluate the impact of those changes. For the FedRAMP Agency Authorization process, a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO is recommended, but is not required. Additionally, some CSPs may acquire 3PAO services for monthly continuous monitoring.

    @@ -345,9 +346,9 @@

    aria-controls="auth-ato-pato"> What is an Authority to Operate (ATO) and Provisional Authority to Operate (P-ATO) and how are they issued?

    -

    Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) can obtain an ATO or P-ATO one of two ways:

    -

    P-ATO through the Joint Authorization Board (JAB): a JAB P-ATO is an initial approval of the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) authorization package by the JAB that any federal agency can leverage to grant an ATO for the use of the cloud service within their agency. The JAB consists of the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) from the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the General Services Administration (GSA), supported by designated technical representatives (TRs) from their respective member organizations. The JAB P-ATO is called a provisional ATO because there is no risk accepted by JAB CIOs. The JAB P-ATO signifies all three JAB agencies reviewed the security package and deemed it acceptable for the federal community. In turn, agencies review the JAB P-ATO and the associated security package and clear it for their agency’s use. In doing so, the agency issues their own authorization to use the product. Additionally, the JAB will conduct continuous monitoring for systems that have earned a P-ATO.

    -

    Agency ATO through the Agency Authorization process: a CSP works directly with the agency partner who reviews the cloud service’s security package. After completing a security assessment, the agency Authorizing Official (or their designee) can issue an ATO.

    +

    Cloud service offerings (CSOs) can obtain an ATO or P-ATO one of two ways:

    +

    P-ATO through the Joint Authorization Board (JAB): A JAB P-ATO is an initial approval of the cloud service provider (CSP) authorization package by the JAB that any federal agency can leverage to grant an ATO for the use of the cloud service within their agency. The JAB consists of the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) from the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the General Services Administration (GSA), supported by designated technical representatives (TRs) from their respective member organizations. The JAB P-ATO is called a provisional ATO because there is no risk accepted by JAB CIOs. The JAB P-ATO signifies all three JAB agencies reviewed the security package and deemed it acceptable for the federal community. In turn, agencies review the JAB P-ATO and the associated security package and clear it for their agency’s use. In doing so, the agency issues their own authorization to use the product. Additionally, the JAB will conduct continuous monitoring for systems that have earned a P-ATO.

    +

    Agency ATO through the Agency Authorization process: A CSP works directly with the agency partner who reviews the cloud service’s security package. After completing a security assessment, the agency authorizing official (or their designee) can issue an ATO.

    For more information about these two authorization paths, please visit our Agency Authorization and JAB Authorization pages.

    @@ -361,10 +362,10 @@

    + aria-controls="auth-penetration-test"> Is a penetration test required for FedRAMP authorization?

    -

    Yes, a FedRAMP-accredited Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) must perform an announced penetration test as part of the assessment/testing process for Moderate and High systems. For more information, please refer to the FedRAMP Penetration Test Guidance [PDF - 984KB].

    +

    Yes, a FedRAMP recognized third party assessment organization (3PAO) must perform an announced penetration test as part of the assessment/testing process for Moderate and High systems. For more information, please refer to the FedRAMP Penetration Test Guidance.

    @@ -375,30 +376,30 @@

    aria-expanded="false" - aria-controls="conmon-requirements"> What are FedRAMP’s Continuous Monitoring requirements? + aria-controls="conmon-requirements"> What are FedRAMP’s continuous monitoring requirements?

    -

    Continuous Monitoring ensures a service offering maintains an appropriate security posture for the life of the system at an agency. Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) maintain and validate the security posture of their service offering through vulnerability management, including monthly operating system, database, and web application scanning reports. They also conduct an Annual Assessment and report incidents. Please refer to the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide [PDF - 1.11MB] for a list of all continuous monitoring deliverable requirements and to the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Performance Management Guide [PDF - 800KB] for guidance on continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization in support of maintaining a security authorization that meets the FedRAMP requirements.

    +

    Continuous monitoring ensures a service offering maintains an appropriate security posture for the life of the system. Cloud service providers (CSPs) maintain and validate the security posture of their service offering through vulnerability management, including monthly operating system, database, web application, and container scanning reports. CSPs also conduct an annual assessment and report incidents. Please refer to the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide for a list of all continuous monitoring deliverable requirements and to the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Performance Management Guide for guidance on continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization in support of maintaining a security authorization that meets the FedRAMP requirements.

    + aria-controls="conmon-assessment"> What is the process for handling false positives found during an initial or annual assessment when the security assessment report (SAR) is closed but has not yet been approved by the partnering agency?

    -

    All of the false positives found during the Annual Assessment should be added to the Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M). If they are approved before the SAR is closed/signed, they are moved to the “Closed POA&M Items” tab. If they have not been approved, they should remain in the “Open POA&M Items” tab until approved. Then, at least annually during assessment, the false positives should be evaluated for continued false positive status. For more information on handling the Annual Assessment and scan findings review the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide [PDF - 1.11MB].

    +

    All of the false positives, found during the annual assessment, should be added to the plan of action and milestones (POA&M). If they are approved before the SAR is closed/signed, they are moved to the “Closed POA&M Items” tab. If they have not been approved, they should remain in the “Open POA&M Items” tab until approved. Then, at least annually during assessment, the false positives should be evaluated for continued false positive status. For more information on handling the annual assessment and scan findings review the FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring Strategy Guide.

    + aria-controls="conmon-changes-infrastructure"> For cloud services that are authorized, what happens if the cloud service provider (CSP) changes the infrastructure of the system?

    -

    A change in infrastructure would be considered a significant change that would need to be evaluated for the scope of the change, impact on the risk posture, and could possibly result in the need for re-authorization. See the FedRAMP Program Management Office’s (PMO’s) Significant Change Policies and Procedures guidance [WORD - 563KB] for more information.

    +

    A change in infrastructure would be considered a significant change that would need to be evaluated for the scope of the change, impact on the risk posture, and could possibly result in the need for re-authorization. See the FedRAMP Significant Change Policies and Procedures guidance for more information.

    @@ -407,18 +408,10 @@

    Acquisition

    -

    -
    -

    No. Agencies cannot require a JAB P-ATO as a requirement to bid on a federal contract. Federal agencies cannot include a JAB P-ATO as a condition of the contract as no agency can commit the JAB to issuing a P-ATO.

    -
    -

    - + aria-controls="acquisition-preference-P-ATO"> How can an agency show preference for types of FedRAMP authorizations when developing criteria for offeror evaluations?

    -

    Program offices seeking to expedite a FedRAMP Authorization can consider source selection criteria that can be used in evaluating Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) that may already have a JAB P-ATO. Inclusion of such evaluation criteria should be discussed with the agency acquisition integrated project team (IPT), including appropriate legal representation.

    +

    Program offices seeking to expedite onboarding of a CSP authorization can consider source selection criteria that can be used in evaluating cloud service offerings (CSOs) that may already have an existing type of FedRAMP authorization. Inclusion of such evaluation criteria should be discussed with the agency acquisition integrated project team (IPT), including appropriate legal representation.

    -

    FedRAMP requirements apply to all federal agencies when federal information is collected, maintained, processed, disseminated, or disposed of by Cloud Service Providers (CSPs). Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring the FedRAMP requirements are met. Contractors are held accountable for performance written into a contract. Program and project managers must include FedRAMP requirements in performance criteria, deliverables, and other appropriate performance outcomes to facilitate inclusion in contract awards.

    +

    FedRAMP requirements apply to all federal agencies when federal information is collected, maintained, processed, disseminated, or disposed of by cloud service providers (CSPs). Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring the FedRAMP requirements are met. Contractors are held accountable for performance written into a contract. Program and project managers must include FedRAMP requirements in performance criteria, deliverables, and other appropriate performance outcomes to facilitate inclusion in contract awards.

    -

    No. The FedRAMP process builds on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FISMA baseline controls by removing requirements that are not applicable to commercial entities and replacing those with controls more appropriate for ensuring security related to protecting information maintained on behalf of the federal government.

    +

    No. The FedRAMP process builds on FISMA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) baseline controls by removing requirements that are not applicable to commercial entities and replacing those with controls more appropriate for ensuring security related to protecting information maintained on behalf of the federal government.

    + aria-controls="acquisition-ready-inidicator"> Is a cloud service provider’s (CSP) FedRAMP Ready designation on the FedRAMP Marketplace an indicator that they will have an easier time getting through the FedRAMP authorization process?

    -

    Perhaps. FedRAMP Ready means a CSP has expressed an interest in becoming a federal provider by sharing information with the federal government that indicates they can meet several of the baseline FedRAMP criteria. FedRAMP Ready does not mean the vendor has achieved FedRAMP Authorization via the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an agency.

    +

    Perhaps. FedRAMP Ready means a CSP has expressed an interest in becoming a federal provider by sharing information with the federal government that indicates they can meet several of the baseline FedRAMP criteria. FedRAMP Ready does not mean the vendor has achieved FedRAMP authorization via the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an agency.

    + aria-controls="acquisition-condition-award"> Can an agency require a FedRAMP authorization as a condition of the contract award?

    -

    In some cases, but only if there are an adequate number of vendors to allow for effective competition. Inclusion of FedRAMP Authorization as a condition of contract award or use as an evaluation factor should be discussed with the agency acquisition integrated project team (IPT), including appropriate legal representation.

    +

    In some cases, but only if there are an adequate number of vendors to allow for effective competition. Inclusion of FedRAMP authorization as a condition of contract award or use as an evaluation factor should be discussed with the agency acquisition integrated project team (IPT), including appropriate legal representation.

    + aria-controls="acquisition-personnel-screening"> What does FedRAMP require for personnel screening requirements from cloud service providers (CSPs)?

    FedRAMP requires CSPs to describe their organization’s personnel screening requirements. If an agency has requirements for federal background investigations, or additional screening and/or citizenship and physical location (e.g., U.S. citizens in Continental United States [CONUS] offices only), then those requirements would need to be specified in the solicitation language, which may affect bid pricing.

    @@ -486,15 +479,9 @@

    aria-controls="test-security-when-FIPS-NSA-cryptography-required">When is Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)-validated or National Security Agency (NSA) approved cryptography required?

    -

    Security Control-13 (SC-13) requires that FIPS 140-validated or NSA-approved cryptographic modules (CMs) are used where cryptography is required. For example, encryption is required for federal data at-rest [SC-28], data in-transit [SC-8(1)], and authentication [IA-2(11)] for FedRAMP Moderate and High systems.

    -
    -

    - -

    -
    -

    SC-13 applies to all required cryptographic functions. Cryptography encompasses more than just encryption. It includes digital signatures, encryption, key management, message authentication, random number generation, and secure hashing.

    +

    Security control SC-13 requires that FIPS 140-validated or NSA-approved cryptographic modules (CMs) are used where cryptography is required.

    + +

    For more information on SC-13, please reference the SC-13 Additional FedRAMP requirements and guidance described in the FedRAMP Security Controls Baseline.

    -

    The status of a cryptographic module (CM) submitted for testing and validation can be found at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) website.

    +

    The status of a cryptographic module submitted for testing and validation can be found at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) website .

    @@ -523,7 +510,7 @@

    aria-controls="security-know-if-cryptographic-module-NSA-approved">How do you know if a cryptographic module is NSA-approved?

    -

    National Security Agency (NSA)-tested and approved cryptographic modules (CMs) are also acceptable. The NSA validation status of a CM can be found at the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) website. Since FIPS 140-validated CMs are by far more commonly used in Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) than NSA-approved CMs, we will refer to FIPS mode from here on.

    +

    National Security Agency (NSA)-tested and approved cryptographic modules (CMs) are also acceptable. The NSA validation status of a CM can be found on the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) website . Since FIPS 140-validated CMs are by far more commonly used in cloud service offerings (CSOs) than NSA-approved CMs, we will refer to FIPS mode from here on.

    + aria-controls="use-of-TLS-1.2-above-statisfy-SC-13-requirements">Does the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 or above satisfy the SC-13 requirement?

    -

    No. The SC-13 requirement applies to cryptographic modules (CMs) used to implement TLS; the use of TLS alone does not satisfy the requirement. While TLS 1.2 and above are required at the protocol level, it is necessary to demonstrate that FIPS 140-validated CMs are used to implement the protocol. It is worth noting that some FIPS 140-2 validated modules may not support cryptographic algorithms to allow for TLS 1.3. In addition to listing ports and protocols, CSPs must also identify the component that performs the encryption function along with the FIPS validation certificate number. For each component and data flow, the SSP Data Flow Diagram(s) and control implementation statements should clearly depict one of the following:

    +

    No. The SC-13 requirement applies to cryptographic modules (CMs) used to implement TLS; the use of TLS alone does not satisfy the requirement. While TLS 1.2 and above are required at the protocol level, it is necessary to demonstrate that FIPS 140-validated CMs are used to implement the protocol. It is worth noting that some FIPS 140 validated modules may not support cryptographic algorithms to allow for TLS 1.3. In addition to listing ports and protocols, CSPs must also identify the component that performs the encryption function along with the FIPS validation certificate number. For each component and data flow, the SSP Data Flow Diagram(s) and control implementation statements should clearly depict one of the following:

    • FIPS-validated CM is implemented [with certificate number in SC-13 control description]
    • Encryption is implemented, but not FIPS-validated
    • @@ -554,26 +541,26 @@

        -
      • For Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) pursuing FedRAMP Ready (required for a FedRAMP JAB authorization), all federal mandates must be met. This means FIPS 140-validated modules must be implemented where encryption is required. Gaps cannot be addressed within a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M).
      • -
      • For CSOs pursuing a FedRAMP authorization via the Agency path, Agency Authorizing Officials (AOs) may risk-accept FIPS 140 gaps under some circumstances. The first step is for the 3PAO to fully document and validate the FIPS status and document gaps in the POA&M to inform the AO’s risk-based authorization decision.
      • +
      • For Cloud service offerings (CSOs) pursuing FedRAMP Ready (required for a FedRAMP JAB authorization), all federal mandates must be met. This means FIPS 140-validated modules must be implemented where encryption is required. Gaps cannot be addressed within a plan of action and milestones (POA&M).
      • +
      • For CSOs pursuing a FedRAMP authorization via the FedRAMP Agency Authorization path, agency authorizing officials (AOs) may risk-accept FIPS 140 gaps under some circumstances. The first step is for the 3PAO to fully document and validate the FIPS status and document gaps in the POA&M to inform an AO’s risk-based authorization decision.

      + aria-controls="security-how-CSP-document-FIPS-140-status-gaps">How should a cloud service provider (CSP) document FIPS 140 status and any gaps?

      • CSP should take the approach that FIPS-validated CMs need to be implemented everywhere cryptography is required, and not look for exceptions.
      • FedRAMP documentation should clearly show encryption and FIPS validation status for every data store, every data flow and authentication method.
      • -
      • Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) should be established where gaps exist. The POA&M should include the reason for using non-compliant modules, for example:
      • +
      • Plan of action and milestones (POA&M) should be established where gaps exist. The POA&M should include the reason for using non-compliant modules, for example:
        • Migrated to a new version of the product; CM is undergoing National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FIPS validation
        • FIPS certificate for current version of the product is now “historical”; vendor seeking FIPS validation for new product
        • Product does not support FIPS-validated encryption
        • Component breaks in FIPS-mode, waiting for vendor patch
        -
      • POA&Ms should include a clear remediation plan and timeline to help inform the AO’s decision, for example:
      • +
      • POA&Ms should include a clear remediation plan and timeline to help inform an AO’s decision, for example:
        • Replace component with FIPS-validated module prior to authorization
        • Patch when compliant version available from vendor
        • @@ -586,12 +573,13 @@

          + aria-controls="expectation-3PAO-CSP-tracking-compliance-cm-6">What is the expectation for third party assessment organization (3PAO) and cloud service provider (CSP) tracking of compliance checks related to CM-6?

          -

          Compliance checks are used to evaluate configuration settings and provide general insight into the overall effectiveness of configuration management activities. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53 control for Configuration Settings is CM-6; however, compliance check findings often map directly to specific 800-53 controls.

          -

          Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) and Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) typically combine compliance check findings into a single CM-6 finding, which is acceptable. However, for initial assessments, annual assessments, and significant change requests, FedRAMP requires a clear understanding, on a per-control basis, of where risks exist. Therefore, 3PAOs must also analyze compliance check findings as part of the controls assessment. Where a direct mapping exists, the 3PAO must document additional findings per control in the corresponding Security Assessment Reports (SAR) Risk Exposure Table (RET), which are then documented in the CSP’s Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M). This will likely result in the details of individual control findings overlapping with those in the combined CM-6 finding, which is acceptable.

          -

          During monthly continuous monitoring, new findings from CSP compliance checks may be combined into a single CM-6 POA&M item. CSPs are not required to map the findings to specific controls because controls are only assessed during initial assessments, annual assessments, and significant change requests.

          +

          Compliance checks are used to evaluate configuration settings and provide general insight into the overall effectiveness of configuration management activities. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53 control for configuration settings is CM-6; however, compliance check findings often map directly to specific 800-53 controls.

          +

          For initial assessments, annual assessments, and significant change requests, FedRAMP requires a clear understanding, on a per-control basis, of where risks exist. Therefore, 3PAOs must analyze compliance check findings as part of the controls assessment. Where a direct mapping exists, the 3PAO must document additional findings per control in the corresponding Security Assessment Reports (SAR) Risk Exposure Table (RET), which are then documented in the CSP’s plan of action and milestones (POA&M). This will likely result in the details of individual control findings overlapping with those in the combined CM-6 finding, which is acceptable.

          +

          For monthly continuous monitoring, cloud service providers (CSPs) and third party assessment organizations (3PAOs) are now asked to track these findings on a new tab of the POA&M document called “Configuration Findings”. There are no continuous monitoring triggers associated with these findings and they will not count as an “open” POA&M item. This new tab will only facilitate the tracking of and ability to see the deviation from the baseline that was set during the last assessment.

          +

          While findings assessed during the annual assessment or the initial assessment require the application of the specific control, any net new item found during monthly continuous monitoring can be labeled as “CM-6” until the next assessment when the specific control should then be applied and forever, thereafter, remain with the finding.

          @@ -600,68 +588,59 @@

          Rev. 5

          + aria-controls="proceed-with-assessment-against-rev-4">We are actively engaged with an initial agency partner and are under contract with a 3PAO to perform an assessment; however, our agency partner has not submitted a formal In Process Request. Can I proceed with the assessment against the Rev. 4 baseline?

          -

          The PMO recognizes that the timeline for issuing “In Process” requests differs from agency to agency. Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) can proceed with the assessment against the Rev. 4 baseline under the following conditions:

          +

          The FedRAMP PMO recognizes that the timeline for issuing “In Process” requests differs from agency to agency. Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) can proceed with the assessment against the Rev. 4 baseline under the following conditions:

          • The CSP provides evidence they are under contract with a 3PAO (with a defined assessment start date) or are actively undergoing an assessment
          • -
          • The CSP has received approval from the Agency partner to proceed with the assessment against the Rev. 4 baseline. This approval should be noted in the In Process request when is it submitted by the Agency
          • +
          • The CSP has received approval from their agency partner to proceed with the assessment against the Rev. 4 baseline. This approval should be noted in the In Process request when is it submitted by an agency
          -

          -

          -
          -

          No, if your annual assessment is scheduled to occur between July 3, 2023 and December 15, 2023 you can proceed with your 2023 annual assessment using the Rev. 4 baseline. You must implement the Rev. 5 baseline prior to your 2024 annual assessment, during which your Rev. 5 implementation will be tested.

          -
          -

          - + aria-controls="scr-controls">Please provide confirmation that significant change requests (SCR) being submitted will be based on the current revision level of the system. If an SCR is submitted, prior to the system undergoing a transition assessment to Rev. 5, the SCR would leverage Rev. 4 controls, correct?

          -

          Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) will be implementing Rev. 5 controls based on the plans created from their Rev. 4 to Rev. 5 gap analysis. SCRs will be based on Rev. 4 or Rev. 5 determined by those CSP-specific implementation plans, and as coordinated with your Authorizing Official (AO).

          +

          Cloud service providers (CSPs) will be implementing Rev. 5 controls based on the plans created from their Rev. 4 to Rev. 5 gap analysis. SCRs will be based on Rev. 4 or Rev. 5 determined by those CSP-specific implementation plans, and as coordinated with your agency authorizing official (AO).

          + aria-controls="rev-5-transition-timeline">What are the Rev. 5 transition timeline requirements?

          -
          -

          Please refer to the "FedRAMP Baseline Rev. 5 Transition Schedule" section of the FedRAMP Baseline Revision 5 Transition Plan to determine your place in the transition schedule and what guidance you should follow in coordination with guidance from your Authorizing Official (AO).

          +
          +

          Please refer to the "FedRAMP Baseline Rev. 5 Transition Schedule" section of the FedRAMP Baseline Revision 5 Transition Plan to determine your place in the transition schedule and what guidance you should follow in coordination with guidance from your agency authorizing official (AO).

          + aria-controls="conflicts-control-requirements-stig">How should we handle conflicts between the FedRAMP control requirements and Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs)? For example, IA-5 (1) states that no rotation is necessary for passwords (per NIST 800-63)); however, STIGs require a 60 day maximum rotation. How should we proceed?

          -

          If a Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) configuration parameter is more restrictive than the associated FedRAMP Rev. 5 baseline requirement, the Cloud Service Provider is under no obligation to implement the STIG parameter unless it is covered under an Executive Order or DHS Emergency Directive.

          +

          If a Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) configuration parameter is more restrictive than the associated FedRAMP Rev. 5 baseline requirement, the cloud service provider is under no obligation to implement the STIG parameter unless it is covered under an Executive Order or DHS Emergency Directive.

          + aria-controls="ca-7-service-configuration-scans">CA-7 has a new “Additional FedRAMP Requirement” to perform monthly “Service Configuration Scans.” To confirm, this means all CM-6 (Defense Information Systems Agency Security Technical Implementation Guide, etc.) benchmark scans must be performed monthly and uploaded to the FedRAMP document repository monthly now? In addition, please confirm whether the 3PAO also needs to perform/submit all of these compliance scans annually as part of the security assessment report (SAR)?

          -

          Yes, Cloud Service Providers in Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) are required to utilize automated scanning tools to perform service configuration scans monthly and provide the scan results to the FedRAMP documentation repository as part of the monthly ConMon deliverable. 3PAOs will ensure that service configuration scans are performed during annual assessments and provide those scans as part of the SAR.

          +

          Yes, Cloud service providers, in the continuous monitoring (ConMon) phase, are required to utilize automated scanning tools to perform service configuration scans monthly and provide the scan results to the FedRAMP documentation repository as part of the monthly ConMon deliverable. 3PAOs will ensure that service configuration scans are performed during annual assessments and provide those scans as part of the SAR.

          + aria-controls="work-breakdown-structure">Will the Rev. 5 transition plan be solely documented in the plan of action and milestones (POA&M) and system security plan (SSP), or is there an expectation of a work breakdown structure (WBS)?

          -

          While a WBS is not required, it may be requested by your Authorizing Official (AO). Please confirm your AO's expectations. However, the POA&M should have sufficent detail so that the AO can track the activities and progress made.

          +

          While a WBS is not required, it may be requested by your agency authorizing official (AO). Please confirm your AO's expectations; however, the POA&M should have sufficient detail so that an AO can track the activities and progress made.

          + aria-controls="rev-5-control-unique-poa&m">Is it required that each individual Rev. 5 control be tracked as a unique plan of action and milestones (POA&M), or is a high level transition finding acceptable?

          Each control should be tracked separately as a unique POA&M so that they can be managed separately.

          @@ -669,28 +648,26 @@

          + aria-controls="csp-plan-of-actions-milestones">Is the expectation that cloud service providers will carry plan of action and milestones items for Rev. 5 controls until their transition assessment?

          -

          Cloud Service Providers must manage their Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&Ms) the same way they manage POA&Ms during continuous monitoring.

          +

          Cloud service providers must manage their plan of action and milestones (POA&Ms) the same way they manage POA&Ms during continuous monitoring.

          + aria-controls="annual-assessment-scope">When transitioning to Rev. 5 as part of an annual assessment, how should the assessment scope be defined?

          -
          -

          As a companion document to the Rev. 5 transition plan, the Control Selection Guide is scheduled for release in the coming weeks. Cloud Service Providers, 3PAOs, and Agencies will use the guide to determine which controls need to be assessed during that annual assessment.

          +
          +

          The FedRAMP Rev. 4 to Rev. 5 Assessment Controls Selection Template was developed to help. cloud service providers, 3PAOs, and agencies determine which controls need to be assessed during an annual assessment.

          + aria-controls="spike-in-poa&m-managed">Documenting a CSP’s Rev. 4 vs Rev. 5 delta as plan of action and milestones (POA&Ms) may cause a large spike in a CSPs POA&M count if they carry those POA&Ms from September 1st 2023 until the CSP’s next annual assessment. It may also cause many overdue POA&Ms. How will this be managed? Finally, who will determine the severity of these POA&Ms created by September 1st 2023?

          -

          POA&Ms created to document Rev. 5 control gaps can be captured as Low severity "manual findings." Once the Rev. 5 control is fully implemented, the CSP will identify the evidence that supports POA&M closure in column Y "Supporting Documents" of the POA&M. For CSPs in Continuous Monitoring, we recognize this may result in a spike of past due POA&Ms during the transition. Please work with your AO determine the appropriate course of action.

          +

          POA&Ms created, to document Rev. 5 control gaps, can be captured as Low severity "manual findings". Once the Rev. 5 control is fully implemented, a CSP should identify the evidence that supports POA&M closure in column Y "Supporting Documents" of the POA&M. For CSPs in the continuous monitoring phase, FedRAMP recognizes this may result in a spike of past due POA&Ms during the transition. Please work with your agency AO to determine the appropriate course of action.

          -

          CSPs with a FedRAMP Authorization must utilize the Rev. 5 SSP template to identify the gaps between their Rev. 4 control implementations and the Rev. 5 requirements. CSPs should have already documented Rev. 4 to Rev. 5 gaps within the POA&M and the Rev. 5 CIS/CRM template. This provides stakeholders visibility into the Rev. 4 controls that have changed and what the CSP will do to implement the Rev. 5 requirements while also documenting the entire Rev. 5 gap.

          -

          Each control that the CSP is documenting a gap for should be a separate POA&M entry. CSPs should not group individual controls together so that the AO and leveraging systems have the necessary fidelity to understand each Rev. 5 control status.

          +

          CSPs with a FedRAMP authorization must utilize the Rev. 5 SSP template to identify the gaps between their Rev. 4 control implementations and the Rev. 5 requirements. CSPs should have already documented Rev. 4 to Rev. 5 gaps within the POA&M and the Rev. 5 CIS/CRM template. This provides stakeholders visibility into the Rev. 4 controls that have changed and what the CSP will do to implement the Rev. 5 requirements while also documenting the entire Rev. 5 gap.

          -

          For CSPs pursuing an initial FedRAMP authorization, deviations from the FedRAMP Baseline Revision 5 Transition Plan must approved by the AO. For CSPs in Continuous Monitoring, deviations must be documented in the CSP's transition plan (due on 9/1/2023) AND approved by the AO.

          +

          For CSPs pursuing an initial FedRAMP authorization, deviations from the FedRAMP Baseline Revision 5 Transition Plan must be approved by an agency AO. For CSPs in the continuous monitoring phase, deviations must be documented in the CSP's transition plan (due on 9/1/23) AND approved by an agency AO.

          -

          FedRAMP is not providing a SCRM template at this time; however, NIST SP 800-161 includes sample SCRM templates in Appendix D.

          +

          FedRAMP is not providing a SCRM template at this time; however, NIST SP 800-161 includes sample SCRM templates in Appendix D.

          -

          CSPs are required to perform (or acquire 3PAOs to perform) Red Team exercises in accordance with CA-8(2) and must provide evidence in the form of a Red Team Test Plan that documents the scope, methodology and approach of the exercise. CSPs must also provide the results of the exercise in the form of a Red Team Test Report. 3PAOs are required to validate and attest to the Red Team Test Plan and Report during the initial SAR testing and during annual assessment testing.

          +

          CSPs are required to perform (or acquire 3PAOs to perform) Red Team exercises in accordance with CA-8(2) and must provide evidence in the form of a Red Team test plan that documents the scope, methodology, and approach of the exercise. CSPs must also provide the results of the exercise in the form of a Red Team test report. 3PAOs are required to validate and attest to the Red Team test plan and report during the initial SAR testing and during annual assessment testing.

          + aria-controls="running-list-cso-implemented-rev5">Is there (or will there be) a running list or spreadsheet of the cloud service offerings that have implemented Rev. 5?

          -

          Not at this time. However, we will continue to have discussions to determine whether this is a capability to include in the future.

          +

          Not at this time; however, FedRAMP will continue to have discussions to determine whether this is a capability to include in the future.

          -

          CSPs will document all operational requirements and false positives from configuration checks the same way that they do vulnerabilities identified from automated scanning tools. Please consult the POA&M Template Completion Guide for further guidance. Not applicable and alternative implementations for configuration settings should be discussed with your AO to determine the appropriate course of action.

          +

          CSPs will document all operational requirements and false positives from configuration checks the same way that they do vulnerabilities identified from automated scanning tools. Please consult the FedRAMP POA&M Template Completion Guide for further guidance. Not applicable and alternative implementations for configuration settings should be discussed with your agency AO to determine the appropriate course of action.

          -

          There are some privacy-related controls in the FedRAMP baselines; however, like with Rev 4, FedRAMP did not include the privacy overlay (Privacy Control Baseline) that NIST has defined in SP 800-53B or any PT controls as part of the FedRAMP baselines. It is the responsibility of each agency to determine their own privacy-related requirements and work with the CSP to make sure those controls are implemented. Privacy controls can flucuate greatly depending on the data types, which is why these are not included as part of the FedRAMP baselines.CSPs should work with their AO to determine if the Agency has privacy requirements above and beyond what is specificed in the Rev. 5 FedRAMP baselines. There are no current plans to provide a Rev. 5 PTA/PIA template for CSPs to complete. Agencies should execute a PTA/PIA to ensure that they are meeting their privacy requirements.

          +

          There are some privacy-related controls in the FedRAMP baselines; however, like with Rev. 4, FedRAMP did not include the privacy overlay (Privacy Control Baseline) that NIST has defined in SP 800-53B or any PT controls as part of the FedRAMP baselines. It is the responsibility of each agency to determine their own privacy-related requirements and work with the CSP to make sure those controls are implemented. Privacy controls can fluctuate greatly depending on the data types, which is why these are not included as part of the FedRAMP baselines. CSPs should work with their agency AO to determine if the agency has privacy requirements above and beyond what is specified in the Rev. 5 FedRAMP baselines. There are no current plans to provide a Rev. 5 PTA/PIA template for CSPs to complete. Agencies should execute a PTA/PIA to ensure that they are meeting their privacy requirements.

          + aria-controls="sr-components-focused-on-paid-vendor-large-components">For supply chain controls: CSPs can define what systems, components, and services fall under the SCRM (SR-2), but is it the intent of the FedRAMP PMO that this only be focused on the paid-vendor or large components? Things like Solarwinds seem obvious to include, but what is the expectation from the FedRAMP PMO in regards to things like pypi sourced packages used to administer the cloud system? Or modules sourced from github used in the product offering of the CSP or in their Infrastructure-as-Code? There are plenty of news articles about those 3rd party modules/components being exploited, but the scope of managing and accounting for those types of components is large, costly, and would make audits take longer.

          -

          FedRAMP will leverage NIST SP 800-161 as the requirements for supply chain considerations for all commercial, proprietary, and open source sources in Cloud Service Offerings (CSO)s. If the technology is being used or leveraged by the CSO, the supply chain controls apply. The Supply Chain Risk Management Plan should enumerate all the products and the plan for managing any risks including open source. According to the supply chain controls, CSPs need to document the scope, methodology and the depth of documenting, managing and testing for the source of products or code being used. The supply chain controls are in scope for audits for FedRAMP but the supplier management is the responsibility of the CSP. 3PAOs will be examining the records and documents, not the individual suppliers.

          +

          FedRAMP will leverage NIST SP 800-161 as the requirements for supply chain considerations for all commercial, proprietary, and open source sources in cloud service offerings (CSO)s. If the technology is being used, or leveraged by the CSO, the supply chain controls apply. The supply chain risk management plan should enumerate all the products and the plan for managing any risks including open source. According to the supply chain controls, CSPs need to document the scope, methodology and the depth of documenting, managing and testing for the source of products or code being used. The supply chain controls are in scope for audits for FedRAMP but the supplier management is the responsibility of the CSP. 3PAOs will be examining the records and documents, not the individual suppliers.

          -

          While the supplemental guidance states that security awareness and security literacy training are two separate training activities, there is no requirement for giving separate trainings, only that the training covers both the topic categories. There is no requirement to provide distinct basic and advanced training. However, organizations may decide to separate basic and advance concepts or combine them. Organizations determine the content of literacy training and awareness based on specific organizational requirements, the systems to which personnel have authorized access, and work environments (e.g., telework).

          +

          While the supplemental guidance states that security awareness and security literacy training are two separate training activities, there is no requirement for giving separate trainings, only that the training covers both the topic categories. There is no requirement to provide distinct basic and advanced training. However, organizations may decide to separate basic and advanced concepts or combine them. Organizations determine the content of literacy training and awareness based on specific organizational requirements, the systems to which personnel have authorized access, and work environments (e.g., telework).

          -

          Control plane traffic in the context of external telecommunications systems are the exchanges with the telecommunication providers that allow for the use of data and voice services and include, for example, management protocols, Domain Name Services (DNS) and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). The term management plane is not a NIST term and not mentioned in this control but in this context it would be the plane where device management and monitoring takes place inside the authorization boundary. While there would not be a prescribed implementation detecting changes the protocols that defined network level changes do have safeguards built. How the CSP chooses to monitor for changes will be dependent on the implementation.

          +

          Control plane traffic in the context of external telecommunications systems are the exchanges with the telecommunication providers that allow for the use of data and voice services and include (e.g., management protocols, Domain Name Services (DNS) and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)). The term management plane is not a NIST term and not mentioned in this control but in this context it would be the plane where device management and monitoring takes place inside the authorization boundary. While there would not be a prescribed implementation detecting changes the protocols that defined network level changes do have safeguards built. How the CSP chooses to monitor for changes will be dependent on the implementation.

          -

          CSPs can assess the Baseline Risk Factors defined in NIST SP 800-161, Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Systems and Organizations, Appendix E Table E-1. CSPs will need to work with their vendors to gain access to the necessary documentation that the CSP can review to determine whether the vendor is in alignment with NIST 800-171 or equivalent framework. That may be an internal assessment performed by the supplier, a third-party, or in support of a framework such as PCI or ISO/IEC 27001 and others.

          +

          CSPs can assess the baseline risk factors defined in NIST SP 800-161, Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Systems and Organizations, Appendix E Table E-1. CSPs will need to work with their vendors to gain access to the necessary documentation that the CSP can review to determine whether the vendor is in alignment with NIST 800-171 or equivalent framework. That may be an internal assessment performed by the supplier, a third-party, or in support of a framework such as PCI or ISO/IEC 27001 and others.

          -

          Network connections are represented in several areas of an SSP. The reference number assigned in the Data in Transit (DIT) table of Appendix Q should be used to align these entries to the Ports, Protocols, Service (PPS) table, and DIT lines on the Data Flow Diagram (DFD).

          +

          Network connections are represented in several areas of an SSP. The reference number assigned in the “Data in Transit (DIT)” table of Appendix Q should be used to align these entries to the “Ports, Protocols, Service (PPS)” table, and DIT lines on the data flow diagram (DFD).

          All DIT connections should be included in all three places and are consistently aligned.The Rev. 5 templates address this by:

          • Ensuring all DIT is represented in all three locations
          • diff --git a/_layouts/rev5-transition.html b/_layouts/rev5-transition.html index c38c4028c..7c2369d28 100644 --- a/_layouts/rev5-transition.html +++ b/_layouts/rev5-transition.html @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@

            Documents

            SAR Appendix A - FedRAMP Risk Exposure Table Template - SAR Appendix A: FedRAMP Risk Exposure Table (RET) Template (updated 8/30/2023) + SAR Appendix A: FedRAMP Risk Exposure Table (RET) Template (updated 3/29/2024) FedRAMP Security Assessment Plan (SAP) Template @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@

            Documents

            FedRAMP Laws, Regulations, Standards and Guidance Reference FedRAMP Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) Template - FedRAMP Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) Template + FedRAMP Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) Template (updated 3/29/2024) FedRAMP Guide for Multi-Agency Continuous Monitoring diff --git a/_layouts/training.html b/_layouts/training.html index fa9f645a5..3ba798887 100644 --- a/_layouts/training.html +++ b/_layouts/training.html @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@

            300-0: 3PAO Obligations and Performance Guide

            The 300-0 level training provides an overview of the 3PAO responsibilities, obligations, and performance standards and intends to achieve the following learning objectives:

            • Define the scope of a 3PAO’s roles and responsibilities relating to the FedRAMP assessment process
            • -
            • Describe the importance of FedRAMP’s 3PAO obligations and performance standards as outlined in the 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document
            • +
            • Describe the importance of FedRAMP’s 3PAO obligations and performance standards as outlined in the 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document
            • Recall the process required for an Independent Assessment Organization (IAO) to become a FedRAMP recognized 3PAO
            diff --git a/_policy/2023-04-06-3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.md b/_policy/2023-04-06-3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.md index f8e6356a1..9c1ac1b2a 100644 --- a/_policy/2023-04-06-3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.md +++ b/_policy/2023-04-06-3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ layout: policy title: 3PAO Obligations and Performance Guide category: Key Assessor Documents weblink: -filename: documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.pdf +filename: documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Standards.pdf filetype: pdf fileinfo: PDF - 208KB condition: update diff --git a/_policy/2024-03-04-FedRAMP-Continuous-Monitoring-Deliverables-Template.md b/_policy/2024-03-04-FedRAMP-Continuous-Monitoring-Deliverables-Template.md index e6d164338..d4c6c6baa 100644 --- a/_policy/2024-03-04-FedRAMP-Continuous-Monitoring-Deliverables-Template.md +++ b/_policy/2024-03-04-FedRAMP-Continuous-Monitoring-Deliverables-Template.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ doctype: - Template tags: - FedRAMP Security Package - - AB Authorization + - JAB Authorization - Agency Authorization - Continuous Monitoring diff --git a/_policy/2023-08-30-FedRAMP_POAM_Template.md b/_policy/2024-03-29-FedRAMP_POAM_Template.md similarity index 100% rename from _policy/2023-08-30-FedRAMP_POAM_Template.md rename to _policy/2024-03-29-FedRAMP_POAM_Template.md diff --git a/_policy/2023-08-30-SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-Template.md b/_policy/2024-03-29-SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-Template.md similarity index 100% rename from _policy/2023-08-30-SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-Template.md rename to _policy/2024-03-29-SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-Template.md diff --git a/_posts/2020-07-23-fedramp-announces-document-and-template-updates.md b/_posts/2020-07-23-fedramp-announces-document-and-template-updates.md index bca761ada..e06a23463 100644 --- a/_posts/2020-07-23-fedramp-announces-document-and-template-updates.md +++ b/_posts/2020-07-23-fedramp-announces-document-and-template-updates.md @@ -7,11 +7,11 @@ author: FedRAMP layout: blog-page --- -FedRAMP released updates to the System Security Plan (SSP) Attachment 12 template, the FedRAMP Master Acronym and Glossary document, and the FedRAMP Initial Authorization Package Checklist template. +FedRAMP released updates to the System Security Plan (SSP) Attachment 12 template, the FedRAMP Master Acronym and Glossary document, and the FedRAMP Initial Authorization Package Checklist template. The SSP Attachment 12 - FedRAMP Laws and Regulations template was updated to include the latest publications, policies information, and relevant links. This is a required attachment to the SSP template and should be used, or updated, by CSPs undergoing the initial authorization process and submitted as part of their SSP package. -The FedRAMP Master Acronym and Glossary document was updated to include a more comprehensive listing of acronyms / terms found in FedRAMP documentation. +The FedRAMP Master Acronym and Glossary document was updated to include a more comprehensive listing of acronyms / terms found in FedRAMP documentation. The FedRAMP Initial Authorization Package Checklist template was updated to remove attachments that are now embedded in the SSP template and to clarify instructions. CSPs are required to complete and submit the checklist when uploading the authorization package to the FedRAMP Repository. diff --git a/_posts/2020-09-01-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md b/_posts/2020-09-01-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md index bb8efc404..a36ec0b92 100644 --- a/_posts/2020-09-01-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md +++ b/_posts/2020-09-01-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ author: FedRAMP layout: blog-page --- -FedRAMP recently updated the 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document to provide additional clarity and guidance to 3PAOs. This document shares comprehensive information about the 3PAO program, the accreditation standards, and the performance standards a FedRAMP 3PAO must follow to maintain good standing. +FedRAMP recently updated the 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document to provide additional clarity and guidance to 3PAOs. This document shares comprehensive information about the 3PAO program, the accreditation standards, and the performance standards a FedRAMP 3PAO must follow to maintain good standing. In addition, the PMO has developed a brief video that covers an overview of the changes to this document. diff --git a/_posts/2023-04-06-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md b/_posts/2023-04-06-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md index 728e26afc..c91135993 100644 --- a/_posts/2023-04-06-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md +++ b/_posts/2023-04-06-updated-3PAO-obligations-and-performance-standards-document.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ image: /assets/img/blog-images/-general-blog-banners/general-banner-3PAO.png author: FedRAMP layout: blog-page --- -The FedRAMP PMO, in coordination with the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), has made several revisions to the FedRAMP Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) Obligations and Performance Standards document that focus on further defining the program’s 3PAO performance and compliance expectations. +The FedRAMP PMO, in coordination with the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), has made several revisions to the FedRAMP Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) Obligations and Performance Standards document that focus on further defining the program’s 3PAO performance and compliance expectations. The updates include: - Ensuring 3PAO compliance with the requirements set forth in the FedRAMP Authorization Act, including Section 3612. Declaration of foreign interests diff --git a/_posts/2023-07-20-3pao-assessment-teams-must-be-qualified.md b/_posts/2023-07-20-3pao-assessment-teams-must-be-qualified.md index 0acbdaa22..1e6c58574 100644 --- a/_posts/2023-07-20-3pao-assessment-teams-must-be-qualified.md +++ b/_posts/2023-07-20-3pao-assessment-teams-must-be-qualified.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ FedRAMP requires FedRAMP recognized third party assessment organization (3PAO) p Beginning on October 1, 2023, FedRAMP, in coordination with A2LA, will be actively reviewing cloud service offering (CSO) initial authorization / annual assessment submissions and 3PAO-provided Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) submissions to ensure the documented 3PAO assessment teams are staffed with qualified personnel. -In accordance with the FedRAMP Obligations and Performance Standards document, *"any 3PAO assessment deliverables containing work performed, prepared, or submitted by 3PAO personnel who do not meet the requirements for their role will be determined to be invalid, will be rejected, and will need to be redone by personnel who meet the required qualifications. FedRAMP will pursue corrective actions and possible removal of FedRAMP recognition if 3PAO deliverables and personnel do not meet these performance standards.”* +In accordance with the FedRAMP Obligations and Performance Standards document, *"any 3PAO assessment deliverables containing work performed, prepared, or submitted by 3PAO personnel who do not meet the requirements for their role will be determined to be invalid, will be rejected, and will need to be redone by personnel who meet the required qualifications. FedRAMP will pursue corrective actions and possible removal of FedRAMP recognition if 3PAO deliverables and personnel do not meet these performance standards.”* Failure of a 3PAO to perform according to these standards affects the federal government’s ability to authorize cloud systems based on a 3PAO’s independent assessment, as outlined in “Appendix B: Detailed 3PAO Performance Standards” of the aforementioned document. It is obligatory for 3PAOs to ensure each assessment team is staffed appropriately to avoid delays in FedRAMP’s ability to review authorization packages, annual assessments, and RARs. diff --git a/_posts/2023-08-01-new-3pao-training-obligations-and-performance-standards.md b/_posts/2023-08-01-new-3pao-training-obligations-and-performance-standards.md index afece9187..06ad3fbb3 100644 --- a/_posts/2023-08-01-new-3pao-training-obligations-and-performance-standards.md +++ b/_posts/2023-08-01-new-3pao-training-obligations-and-performance-standards.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ image: /assets/img/blog-images/2023-08-01-new-3pao-training-obligations-and-perf author: FedRAMP layout: blog-page --- -FedRAMP recognized Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) now have a 300-0 Obligations and Performance Standards training course that complements the FedRAMP 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document and also serves as an introduction to the new 3PAO training curriculum. +FedRAMP recognized Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs) now have a 300-0 Obligations and Performance Standards training course that complements the FedRAMP 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document and also serves as an introduction to the new 3PAO training curriculum. The training and accompanying FedRAMP 3PAO Obligations and Performance Standards document outlines the: - Scope of a 3PAO’s roles and responsibilities related to the FedRAMP assessment processes diff --git a/_team/brian_conrad.md b/_team/brian_conrad.md deleted file mode 100644 index bd59bf220..000000000 --- a/_team/brian_conrad.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,17 +0,0 @@ ---- -layout: teammate -name: Brian Conrad -image: /assets/img/team/profile_BrianConrad.jpg -title: Acting FedRAMP Director and Program Manager for Cybersecurity -body-class: page-team-single -date: 2022-01-04 -order: 100 - ---- -Brian Conrad joined the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) team within the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) in December 2018, bringing with him a wealth of technical knowledge and leadership experience. - -Brian acquired his foundational leadership, technical, and project management skills while serving in the United States Marine Corps. Upon his transition from active duty, Brian joined Booz Allen Hamilton where he spent over seven years leveraging and growing his IT, cybersecurity, and project management skills supporting various clients across the Department of Defense (DOD), including the U.S. Marine Corps, United States Navy, and the Chief Information Officer for the DOD. During this time, Brian became recognized as a cloud computing/cybersecurity Subject Matter Expert within the federal government. - -At GSA, Brian continues his service as the Acting FedRAMP Director since January 2021. In addition to his role as Acting Director, he leads multiple efforts associated with Joint Authorization Board (JAB) assessment and authorization activities that facilitate the authorization and adoption of commercial cloud services across the federal government. - -Brian’s education includes a Senior Executive Fellowship at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government, an M.S. in Information Technology Management from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, and a B.A. in History with a minor in Economics from the University of Memphis. diff --git a/_team/david_waltermire.md b/_team/david_waltermire.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2a9595dda --- /dev/null +++ b/_team/david_waltermire.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +layout: teammate +name: David Waltermire +image: /assets/img/team/profile_DavidWaltermire.png +title: Lead for Data Strategy and Standards +body-class: page-team-single +date: 2024-03-27 +order: 700 + +--- + +David Waltermire joined the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) team in April 2023, bringing over two decades of technical knowledge and leadership experience to the forefront of GSA's cybersecurity endeavors. His prior work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) solidified his reputation as a trusted authority in data-centric approaches to security automation, cybersecurity research, standards development, and leadership. His technical and strategic abilities have positioned him as a trusted authority in the field. + +At NIST, David has been instrumental in the development and advancement of various cybersecurity standards, frameworks, and initiatives, including the Security Content Automation Protocol, the Risk Management Framework (RMF), and the National Vulnerability Database. Notably, he has been a driving force behind the establishment and adoption of the Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL), a standardized format for expressing security controls, assessments, and related information. David's contributions to OSCAL have played a significant role in enhancing the efficiency, interoperability, and automation of security assessment processes. + +At GSA, David continues to be an advocate for innovation and collaboration in cybersecurity as the Lead for Data Strategy and Standards. He continues to be actively engaged with stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and international organizations to promote the adoption and integration of OSCAL into cybersecurity practices. David's collaborative approach and diplomatic leadership style will continue to foster consensus-building and driven progress in addressing complex cybersecurity challenges, paving the way for enhanced security posture and resilience in organizations worldwide. + +A cornerstone of David's approach at GSA is the integration and promotion of OSCAL into FedRAMPs processes. His advocacy for OSCAL underscores his dedication to streamlining security assessment processes and fostering interoperability and automation in cybersecurity practices. Through strategic collaborations and partnerships, David is working to position GSA at the forefront of cybersecurity innovation and resilience, ensuring that it remains a leader in safeguarding federal cloud services and information. diff --git a/assets/img/FedRAMP_X.svg b/assets/img/FedRAMP_X.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f01306fb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/img/FedRAMP_X.svg @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/img/team/profile_DavidWaltermire.png b/assets/img/team/profile_DavidWaltermire.png new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a529bc35f Binary files /dev/null and b/assets/img/team/profile_DavidWaltermire.png differ diff --git a/assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.pdf b/assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Standards.pdf similarity index 98% rename from assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.pdf rename to assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Standards.pdf index 473578271..28b7bbeef 100644 Binary files a/assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Guide.pdf and b/assets/resources/documents/3PAO_Obligations_and_Performance_Standards.pdf differ diff --git a/assets/resources/templates/FedRAMP-POAM-Template.xlsx b/assets/resources/templates/FedRAMP-POAM-Template.xlsx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b2677ec8a Binary files /dev/null and b/assets/resources/templates/FedRAMP-POAM-Template.xlsx differ diff --git a/assets/resources/templates/SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-(RET)-Template.xlsx b/assets/resources/templates/SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-(RET)-Template.xlsx index dbf02e1d4..6b4e4c1c7 100644 Binary files a/assets/resources/templates/SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-(RET)-Template.xlsx and b/assets/resources/templates/SAR-Appendix-A-FedRAMP-Risk-Exposure-Table-(RET)-Template.xlsx differ