Integrated Factory Acceptance Test (IFAT) as Security Best Practice 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions1 Larry Alls, Security Engineering Manager FoxGuard Solutions

Good Afternoon  Brief History of Threats  Security Myths  Layered Defense  Implementing a layered defense in the Industrial Controls System (ICS) network  Factory Acceptance Testing  IFAT – Questions to ask – Helpful hints – Lessons learned – Outcome – Benefits 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions2

Evolution of Security Challenges 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions3 GLOBAL Infrastructure Impact REGIONAL Networks MULTIPLE Networks INDIVIDUAL Networks INDIVIDUAL Computer Target and Scope of Damage Rapidly Escalating Threat First Gen  Boot viruses Weeks Second Gen  Macro viruses  Denial of Service Days Third Gen  Distributed Denial of Service  Blended threats Minutes Next Gen  Flash threats  Massive “bot”- driven DDoS  Damaging payload worms Seconds 1980s1990s TodayFuture

Evolution of Threats and Exploits 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions4 Packet Forging/Spoofing Password Guessing Self Replicating Code (WORM) Password Cracking Vulnerability Scanning Audit Disablement Back Door Exploits Session Hijacking Sniffers Stealth Diagnostics High Low Pulsing Zombies Self Installing Root Kits Time Dynamic Capabilities Intelligent Bots Complexity Expertise Required Mitnick or Wozniak Script Kiddies ~90s Today

Think about it…  Implementing security on control systems at power plants is becoming more and more critical for the reliability of our electric sector.  Why is that? – Because NERC says so? – Because of terrorist threats?  What does this mean to the plant and the plant operators?  How do we take the IT best practice of layered defense and apply it to a control system environment?  What is the impact of installing security on a control system?  How does it affect the plant, the vendor, and the integrator? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions5

Common Security Myths  Only specific users have access to my systems and I know who they are  We air-gap the ICS network so it’s not exploitable  Our firewall is bulletproof  What’s the worst that can happen? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions6

Worst-Case? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions7

Repeat After Me! Disregard Security and your network:  Is vulnerable  Is exploitable  And someone will access it 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions8

Why? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions9  Control systems use IT systems and networking technologies – NIST Special publication is riddled with information about the addition of IT technologies and how they pose threats to the ICS system, and what needs to be done to mitigate these threats.  Control systems may have implemented IT based solutions, but they have not kept up with IT technology. – ICS was designed to last 15 – 20 years – Lifecycle for typical IT system is years – Combined with the security myths and the ever growing IT threats, it’s time to act

Implementing Security in the ICS  Challenging due to different vendors  Can you integrate these solutions into a single solution  Vendors don’t usually integrate their systems with one another  Some power providers are toying with the idea of managing their security from a single management layer, but are finding it challenging because of the different vendor solutions  This type of solution calls for some network designing and extensive testing prior to deployment 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions10

Factory Acceptance Testing  TEST, TEST, and TEST AGAIN!!!  The answer for integrating anything into the ICS has always been a Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)  Implementing security is no exception  Integrated Security Factory Acceptance Test (IFAT) – Vendors, customer and integrator come together prior to installation to “work out” site specific issues and test every facet of the security install – These issues would normally have to be dealt with during the outage – This process saves the plant considerable time during the outage as it relates to the cyber-security installation – They can then concentrate on other upgrades that are being performed knowing that the added security is not going to impact start-up 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions11

Questions to Ask  What vendors will be integrated into this plan?  Are they willing to work with the other vendors in a neutral environment?  To what extent will they cooperate?  Who will integrate this solution?  Who will write the test plans and oversee the IFAT?  What facilities are needed to accommodate the vendors?  What onsite security will be required by each vendor?  How can we maintain secure data transactions?  How can NDAs be handled between vendors? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions12

Top 5 Things to Remember 1.Communicate early, honestly, and thoroughly 2.Manage expectations on all sides 3.Not all the vendors will participate equally 4.Expect surprises that were not anticipated 5.Have clear definitions for Success and Failure 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions13

Lessons Learned  Get complete requirements from all vendors and set up well in advance  Run at least two mock IFATs prior to having the real IFAT  Have clear applicable test plans and procedures  Keep personnel limited  Allow ample time for complete testing 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions14

Closing the IFAT  Intangible product: Confidence – Confidence that the system to be delivered meets expectations. This confidence is built from a long process consisting of several major milestones, one of which is the IFAT; another being the successful installation and execution of “real” science on the system.  Tangible product: The certification of a formal agreement – A signed agreement detailing what passed, what failed, and the remediation plan for each failure/deficiency. If the remediation plan cannot be fully addressed at the IFAT, then a deadline for presenting this plan to the customer should be set. If another IFAT is required, this should be part of the remediation plan. In the worst case, the remediation plan may include how the system will be corrected on site, after installation at the customer facility. 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions15

Who Benefits? 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions16  The Vendor This approach validates all the hard work that the vendor has put into its system Reduced loss / cost due to false expectations Improved customer relations / confidence  The Customer Confidence in the systems Minimal impact during installation Reduced implementation costs Reduced costs due to non-compliance  The Integrator Expectations of delivery are clear Increased success rate of implementations Reduced losses due to false expectations

Questions? Larry Alls, Security Engineering Manager FoxGuard Solutions FoxGuard Solutions provides cyber security, including HMI patching and updates, to industrial control systems. 10/27/2015FoxGuard Solutions17