[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8354-8368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01453]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM22-3-000; Order No. 887]


Internal Network Security Monitoring for High and Medium Impact 
Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final action.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
directing the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to 
develop and submit within 15 months of the effective date of this final 
action for Commission approval new or modified Reliability Standards 
that require internal network security monitoring within a trusted 
Critical Infrastructure Protection networked environment for all high 
impact bulk electric system (BES) Cyber Systems with and without 
external routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with 
external routable connectivity. In addition, the Commission directs 
NERC to perform a study of all low impact BES Cyber Systems with and 
without external routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems without external routable connectivity, as set forth in the 
final action, and to submit its study report to the Commission within 
12 months of the issuance of this final action.

DATES: This final agency action is effective April 10, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Tapia (Technical Information), 
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6559, 
[email protected].
    Leigh Faugust (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6396, [email protected].
    Seth Yeazel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 
502-6890, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

 
                                                         Paragraph No.
 
I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Background.......................................                  7
    A. Section 215 and the Mandatory Reliability                       7
     Standards.......................................
    B. Internal Network Security Monitoring..........                  8
    C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.................                 13
III. Need for Reform.................................                 18
IV. Discussion.......................................                 23
    A. Overview......................................                 23
    B. INSM for High and Medium Impact BES Cyber                      31
     Systems.........................................
        1. Comments..................................                 32
        2. Commission Determination..................                 48
    C. INSM for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems.........                 59
        1. Comments..................................                 61
        2. Commission Determination..................                 67
    D. Security Objectives...........................                 69
        1. Comments..................................                 70
        2. Commission Determination..................                 76
    E. Standards Development Timeframe...............                 80
        1. Comments..................................                 81

[[Page 8355]]

 
        2. Commission Determination..................                 85
    F. NERC Study and Report on INSM Implementation..                 87
V. Information Collection Statement..................                 91
VI. Environmental Analysis...........................                 96
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................                 97
VIII. Document Availability..........................                100
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification....                103
 

I. Introduction

    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ 
the Commission directs the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC) to develop new or modified Critical Infrastructure 
Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards that require internal network 
security monitoring (INSM) for CIP-networked environments for all high 
impact bulk electric system (BES) Cyber Systems \2\ with and without 
external routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with 
external routable connectivity.\3\ Further, the Commission directs NERC 
to submit a report within 12 months of issuance of this final action 
that studies the feasibility of implementing INSM at all low impact BES 
Cyber Systems \4\ and medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external 
routable connectivity (i.e., BES Cyber Systems not subject to the new 
or revised Reliability Standards).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (The Commission may order the Electric 
Reliability Organization to submit to the Commission a proposed 
reliability standard or a modification to a reliability standard 
that addresses a specific matter if the Commission considers such a 
new or modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this 
section.).
    \2\ BES Cyber Systems are defined as ``one or more BES Cyber 
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or 
more reliability tasks.'' See NERC, Glossary of Terms Used in NERC 
Reliability Standards (2022) (NERC Glossary), https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Glossary%20of%20Terms/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf. BES Cyber 
Systems are categorized as high, medium, or low impact depending on 
the functions of the assets housed within each system and the risk 
they potentially pose to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power 
System. Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (BES Cyber System 
Categorization) sets forth criteria that registered entities apply 
to categorize BES Cyber Systems as high, medium, or low impact 
depending on the adverse impact that loss, compromise, or misuse of 
those BES Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the 
BES. The impact level (i.e., high, medium, or low) of BES Cyber 
Systems, in turn, determines the applicability of security controls 
for BES Cyber Systems that are contained in the remaining CIP 
Reliability Standards (i.e., Reliability Standards CIP-003-8 to CIP-
013-1).
    \3\ NERC defines external routable connectivity as the ``ability 
to access a BES Cyber System from a Cyber Asset that is outside of 
its associated Electronic Security Perimeter via a bi-directional 
routable protocol connection.'' See NERC Glossary.
    \4\ For ease of reference, low impact BES Cyber Systems include 
those with and without external routable connectivity.
    \5\ For ease of reference, BES Cyber Systems not subject to the 
new or revised Reliability Standards in this final action will be 
referred to as all low impact BES Cyber Systems and medium impact 
BES Cyber Systems without external routable connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. INSM is a subset of network security monitoring that is applied 
within a ``trust zone,'' \6\ such as an electronic security 
perimeter.\7\ For the purpose of this rulemaking, the trust zone 
applicable to INSM is the CIP-networked environment. INSM enables 
continuing visibility over communications between networked devices 
within a trust zone and detection of malicious activity that has 
circumvented perimeter controls. Further, INSM facilitates the 
detection of anomalous network activity indicative of an attack in 
progress, thus increasing the probability of early detection and 
allowing for quicker mitigation and recovery from an attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) defines trust zone as a 
``discrete computing environment designated for information 
processing, storage, and/or transmission that share the rigor or 
robustness of the applicable security capabilities necessary to 
protect the traffic transiting in and out of a zone and/or the 
information within the zone.'' CISA, Trusted Internet Connections 
3.0: Reference Architecture, at 2 (July 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CISA_TIC%203.0%20Vol.%202%20Reference%20Architecture.pdf.
    \7\ An electronic security perimeter is ``the logical border 
surrounding a network to which BES Cyber Systems are connected using 
a routable protocol.'' NERC Glossary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. We find that, while the CIP Reliability Standards require 
monitoring of the electronic security perimeter and associated systems 
for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems, the CIP-networked 
environment remains vulnerable to attacks that bypass network 
perimeter-based security controls traditionally used to identify the 
early phases of an attack. This presents a gap in the currently 
effective CIP Reliability Standards. To address this gap, we direct 
NERC to develop new or modified CIP Reliability Standards requiring 
INSM for all high impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external 
routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external 
routable connectivity to ensure the detection of anomalous network 
activity indicative of an attack in progress. These provisions will 
increase the probability of early detection and allow for quicker 
mitigation and recovery from an attack.
    4. As discussed below, while the Commission's notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) \8\ in this proceeding proposed to direct NERC to 
address INSM for all high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems, we are 
persuaded by commenters that raised certain concerns with the NOPR 
proposal and, in this final action, limit our directive to all high 
impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external routable 
connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable 
connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Internal Network Sec. Monitoring for High & Medium 
Impact Bulk Elec. Sys. Cyber Sys., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 87 
FR 4173 (Jan. 27, 2022), 178 FERC ] 61,038, at P 31 (2022) (INSM 
NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. While NERC has flexibility in developing the content of INSM 
requirements, the new or modified CIP Reliability Standards must 
address the specific concerns that we identify in this final action. In 
particular, in this final action, we direct NERC to develop new or 
modified CIP Reliability Standards that are forward-looking, objective-
based, and that address the following three security objectives that 
pertain to INSM. First, any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards 
should address the need for responsible entities to develop baselines 
of their network traffic inside their CIP-networked environment. 
Second, any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should address 
the need for responsible entities to monitor for and detect 
unauthorized activity, connections, devices, and software inside the 
CIP-networked environment. And third, any new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards should require responsible entities to identify 
anomalous activity to a high level of confidence by: (1) logging 
network traffic (we note that packet capture is one means of 
accomplishing this goal); \9\

[[Page 8356]]

(2) maintaining logs and other data collected regarding network 
traffic; and (3) implementing measures to minimize the likelihood of an 
attacker removing evidence of their tactics, techniques, and procedures 
\10\ from compromised devices.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ While the NOPR stated that ``any new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards should address the ability to support 
operations and response by requiring responsible entities to . . . 
log and packet capture network traffic,'' id. (citation omitted), we 
clarify in this final action that ``packet capture'' is one example 
of how to support that goal. Packet capture allows information to be 
intercepted in real-time and stored for long-term or short-term 
analysis, thus providing a network defender greater insight into a 
network. Packet captures provide context to security events, such as 
intrusion detection system alerts. See CISA, National Cybersecurity 
Protection System Cloud Interface Reference Architecture, Volume 1, 
General Guidance, at 13, 25 (July 24, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CISA_NCPS_Cloud_Interface_RA_Volume-1.pdf.
    \10\ NIST defines tactics, techniques, and procedures as 
describing the behavior of an actor, where ``Tactics are high-level 
descriptions of behavior, techniques are detailed descriptions of 
behavior in the context of a tactic, and procedures are even lower-
level, highly detailed descriptions in the context of a technique.'' 
NIST further explains that ``tactics, techniques, and procedures 
could describe an actor's tendency to use a specific malware 
variant, order of operations, attack tool, delivery mechanism (e.g., 
phishing or watering hole attack), or exploit.'' See NIST, NIST 
Special Publication 800-150: Guide to Cyber Threat Information 
Sharing, at 2 (Oct. 2016), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-150.pdf.
    \11\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. We also direct NERC to submit the new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards for Commission approval within 15 months of the 
effective date of this final action. We believe that a 15-month 
deadline provides sufficient time for NERC to develop responsive 
standard(s) within NERC's standards development process.
    7. Further, the Commission sought comment in the NOPR on the 
possible implementation of INSM to detect malicious activity in 
networks with low impact BES Cyber Systems but did not propose to 
direct the development of Reliability Standards for INSM for low impact 
BES Cyber Systems. In this final action, we direct NERC to conduct a 
study to support future Commission actions to extend INSM requirements 
to all low impact BES Cyber Systems and medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
without external routable connectivity. Specifically, NERC should 
include in its study a determination of: (1) ongoing risk to the 
reliability and security of the Bulk-Power System posed by low and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems that would not be subject to the new or 
modified Reliability Standards, including the number of low and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems not required to comply with the new or 
modified standard; and (2) potential technological or other challenges 
involved in extending INSM to additional BES Cyber Systems, as well as 
possible alternative mitigating actions to address ongoing risks. We 
believe that this information would provide the basis for further 
Commission action, as warranted, regarding INSM or alternatives. We 
direct NERC to file its study report with the Commission within 12 
months of the issuance of this final action.

II. Background

A. Section 215 and the Mandatory Reliability Standards

    8. FPA section 215 provides that the Commission may certify an 
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), the purpose of which is to 
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval.\12\ Reliability Standards may be 
enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the 
Commission independently.\13\ Pursuant to FPA section 215, the 
Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO \14\ and 
subsequently certified NERC.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(c).
    \13\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
    \14\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. Reliability 
Org.; & Procs. for the Establishment, Approval, & Enf't of Elec. 
Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (Feb. 17, 2006), 
114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 
(Apr. 18, 2006), 114 FERC ] 61,328 (2006).
    \15\ N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062, order on 
reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. 
Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Internal Network Security Monitoring

    9. INSM is designed to address as early as possible situations 
where perimeter network defenses are breached by detecting intrusions 
and malicious activity within a trust zone. INSM consists of three 
stages: (1) collection; (2) detection; and (3) analysis. Taken 
together, these three stages provide the benefit of early detection and 
alerting of intrusions and malicious activity.\16\ Some of the tools 
that may be used for INSM include: anti-malware; intrusion detection 
systems; intrusion prevention systems; and firewalls.\17\ These tools 
are multipurpose and can be used for collection, detection, and 
analysis (e.g., forensics). Additionally, some of the tools (e.g., 
anti-malware, firewall, or intrusion prevention systems) have the 
capability to block network traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Chris Sanders & Jason Smith, Applied Network Security 
Monitoring, at 9-10 (Nov. 2013); see also ISACA, Applied Collection 
Framework: A Risk-Driven Approach to Cybersecurity Monitoring (Aug. 
18, 2020), https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2020/applied-collection-framework.
    \17\ See NIST Special Publication 800-83, Guide to Malware 
Incident Prevention and Handling for Desktops and Laptops, at 10-13 
(July 2013), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/nist.sp.800-83r1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The benefits of INSM can be understood by first describing the 
way attackers commonly compromise targets. Attackers typically follow a 
systematic process of planning and execution to increase the likelihood 
of a successful compromise.\18\ This process includes reconnaissance 
(e.g., information gathering), choice of attack type and method of 
delivery (e.g., malware delivered through a phishing campaign), taking 
control of the entity's systems, and carrying out the attack (e.g., 
exfiltration of project files, administrator credentials, and employee 
personal identifiable information). Thus, successful cyberattacks 
require the attacker to: (1) gain access to a target system; and (2) 
execute commands while in that system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ SANS Institute, Applying Security Awareness to the Cyber 
Kill Chain (May 31, 2019), https://www.sans.org/blog/applying-security-awareness-to-the-cyber-kill-chain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. INSM could better position an entity to detect malicious 
activity that has circumvented perimeter controls and gained access to 
the target system. Because an attacker that moves among devices 
internal to a trust zone must use network pathways and required 
protocols to send malicious communications, INSM will potentially alert 
an entity of the attack and improve the entity's ability to stop the 
attack at its early phases.
    12. By providing visibility of network traffic that may only 
traverse internally within a trust zone, INSM can warn entities of an 
attack in progress. For example, properly placed, configured, and tuned 
INSM capabilities such as intrusion detection system and intrusion 
prevention system sensors could detect and/or block malicious activity 
early and alert an entity of the compromise. INSM can also be used to 
record network traffic for analysis, providing a baseline that an 
entity can use to better detect malicious activity. Establishing 
baseline network traffic allows entities to define what is and is not 
normal and expected network activity and determine whether observed 
anomalous activity warrants further investigation.\19\ The recorded 
network traffic can also be retained to facilitate timely recovery and/
or perform a thorough post-incident analysis of malicious activity. 
High quality data from collected network

[[Page 8357]]

traffic is important for recovering from cyberattacks as this type of 
data allows for: (1) determining the timeframe for backup restoration; 
(2) creating a record of the attack for incident reporting and 
response; and (3) analyzing the attack itself to inform actions to 
prevent it from happening again.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CISA, Best Practices for Securing Election Systems, 
Security Tip (ST19-002) (Aug. 25, 2021), https://www.cisa.gov/tips/st19-002.
    \20\ Help Net Security, Three Reasons Why Ransomware Recovery 
Requires Packet Data (Aug. 2021), https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2021/08/24/ransomware-recovery-packet-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In summary, INSM better positions an entity to detect an 
attacker in the early phases of an attack and reduces the likelihood 
that an attacker can gain a strong foothold, including operational 
control, on the target system. In addition to early detection and 
mitigation, INSM may improve incident response by providing higher 
quality data about the extent of an attack internal to a trust zone. 
Finally, INSM provides insight into east-west network traffic \21\ 
happening inside the network perimeter, which enables a more 
comprehensive picture of the extent of an attack compared to data 
gathered from the network perimeter alone.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ East-west traffic refers to the communications among BES 
Cyber Systems and is the specific type of network traffic that 
remains within the network perimeter. It may refer to communication 
peer-to-peer industrial automation and control systems devices in a 
network or to activity between servers or networks inside a data 
center, rather than the data and applications that traverse networks 
to the outside world. CISCO, Networking and Security in Industrial 
Automation Environments Design Guide, at 111 (Aug. 2020), https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Verticals/Industrial_Automation/IA_Horizontal/DG/Industrial-AutomationDG.pdf; 
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory 
Committee, Report to the President on Software-Defined Networking, 
at E-3 (Aug. 12, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NSTAC%20SDN%20Report%20%288-12-20%29.pdf.
    \22\ CISA, CISA Analysis: FY2020 Risk and Vulnerability 
Assessments (July 2021), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY20-RVA-Analysis_508C.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    14. On January 20, 2022, the Commission issued the INSM NOPR 
proposing to direct NERC to develop new or modified CIP Reliability 
Standards to require INSM for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. 
In the NOPR, the Commission preliminarily found that the currently 
effective CIP Reliability Standards do not address INSM, thus leaving a 
gap in the CIP Reliability Standards.\23\ The NOPR explained that 
including INSM requirements in the CIP Reliability Standards would 
ensure that responsible entities maintain visibility over 
communications between networked devices within a trust zone rather 
than simply monitoring communications at the network perimeter access 
point(s) (i.e., at the boundary of an electronic security perimeter as 
required by the current CIP requirements).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at PP 2, 14, 26.
    \24\ Id. PP 2, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The NOPR discussed various risks to trusted CIP networks posed 
by the lack of requirements for INSM in the Standards, which include 
attackers: (1) escalating privileges; (2) moving inside the CIP-
networked environment; and (3) executing unauthorized code.\25\ In the 
context of supply chain risk, the NOPR explained that a malicious 
update from a known software vendor could be downloaded directly to a 
server as trusted code, and it would not set-off any alarms until 
abnormal behavior occurred and was detected.\26\ The NOPR explained 
that, because the CIP-networked environment is a trust zone, a 
compromised server in the trust zone could be used to install malicious 
updates directly onto devices that are internal to the CIP-networked 
environment without detection. Further, in the context of an insider 
threat, an employee with elevated administrative credentials could 
identify and collect data, add accounts, delete logs, or even 
exfiltrate data without being detected. The NOPR also pointed to the 
SolarWinds attack as an example of how an attacker can bypass all 
network perimeter-based security controls traditionally used to 
identify the early phases of an attack.\27\ This supply chain attack 
leveraged a trusted vendor to compromise the networks of public and 
private organizations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. P 33.
    \26\ Id. P 17.
    \27\ Id. P 18 (citing FERC, NERC, SolarWinds and Related Supply 
Chain Compromise, at 16 (July 7, 2021), https://cms.ferc.gov/media/solarwinds-and-related-supply-chain-compromise-0).
    \28\ A threat actor gained access to the SolarWinds production 
environment, ``pushed'' malicious code through legitimate updates to 
customers and enabled the adversary to gain remote access and 
network privileges allowing the actor to manipulate identity and 
authentication mechanisms. SolarWinds and Related Supply Chain 
Compromise at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The NOPR sought comments on all aspects of the proposed 
directive, and it also specifically solicited responses to the 
following questions: (1) what are the potential challenges to 
implementing INSM (e.g., cost, availability of specialized resources, 
and documenting compliance); (2) what capabilities (e.g., software, 
hardware, staff, and services) are necessary or appropriate for INSM to 
meet the security objectives; (3) are the three security objectives for 
INSM described in the NOPR necessary and sufficient and, if not 
sufficient, what are other pertinent objectives that would support the 
goal of having responsible entities successfully implement INSM; and 
(4) what is a reasonable timeframe for developing and implementing 
Reliability Standards for INSM.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. While the Commission's proposed directives centered on high and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems, the Commission also sought comment on 
the usefulness and practicality of implementing INSM to detect 
malicious activity in networks with low impact BES Cyber Systems, as 
well as potentially identifying a subset of low impact BES Cyber 
Systems to which INSM requirements could apply.\30\ In particular, the 
Commission sought comment on whether the same risks associated with 
high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems also apply to low impact BES 
Cyber Systems.\31\ Commensurate with their impact on the Bulk-Power 
System, low impact BES Cyber Systems have fewer security controls and, 
unlike high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems, are not subject to 
monitoring at the network perimeter access point(s).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. PP 4, 33-34.
    \31\ Id. P 33.
    \32\ See Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection 
Reliability Standards, Order No. 791, 78 FR 72756 (Dec. 13, 2013), 
145 FERC ] 61,160, at P 106 (2013), order on clarification and 
reh'g, Order No. 791-A, 78 FR 24107 (Apr. 24, 2013), 146 FERC ] 
61,188 (2014) (finding that categorizing assets as high, medium, or 
low based on their impact on the reliable operation of the Bulk-
Power System, with all BES Cyber Systems being categorized as at 
least low impact, offers more comprehensive protection than prior 
versions of the standards and declining to require NERC to develop 
specific controls for low impact facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The comment period for the NOPR ended on March 28, 2022, and 
the Commission received 22 sets of comments, including one late-filed 
comment.\33\ A list of commenters appears in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The late-filed comment raised issues that were outside the 
scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, we do not address the comment 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Need for Reform

    19. INSM is a component of a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy 
as it provides an additional layer of defense against intrusions 
regardless of the attack vector or whether existing security controls 
failed. With INSM, an entity can maintain visibility over 
communications between networked devices within a trust zone and detect 
malicious activity that has circumvented perimeter controls.\34\

[[Page 8358]]

INSM facilitates the detection of anomalous network activity indicative 
of an attack in progress, thus increasing the probability of early 
detection and allowing for quicker mitigation and recovery from an 
attack.\35\ Without INSM, an attacker may be able to move among devices 
internal to a trust zone using network pathways and required protocols 
to send malicious communications. Further, without INSM, an attacker 
could exploit legitimate cyber resources to: (1) escalate privileges 
(i.e., exploit a software vulnerability to gain administrator account 
privileges); (2) move undetected inside the trust zone of the CIP-
networked environment; or (3) execute unauthorized code (e.g., a virus 
or ransomware).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 11.
    \35\ Id. P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Currently, network security monitoring in the CIP Reliability 
Standards focuses on network perimeter defense and preventing 
unauthorized access at the electronic security perimeter. While the CIP 
Reliability Standards require monitoring of inbound and outbound 
internet communications at the electronic security perimeter,\36\ the 
currently effective CIP Reliability Standards do not require INSM 
within trusted CIP-networked environments for BES Cyber Systems. This 
leaves a gap in the CIP Reliability Standards for situations where 
vendors or individuals with authorized access are considered secure and 
trustworthy but could still introduce a cybersecurity risk, as well as 
other attack vectors that can exploit this gap. Additionally, the lack 
of INSM controls diminishes an essential component of a defense-in-
depth strategy and therefore may increase the time it takes an entity 
to detect an intrusion and the time an attacker has to leverage 
compromised user accounts and traverse unmonitored network 
connections.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 (Electronic Security 
Perimeter(s)).
    \37\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 31; see also Nat'l Sec. 
Agency, Network Infrastructure Security Guide (June 2022), https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/15/2003018261/-1/-1/0/CTR_NSA_NETWORK_INFRASTRUCTURE_SECURITY_GUIDE_20220615.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The currently effective CIP Reliability Standards, while 
offering a broad set of cybersecurity protections, do not require INSM. 
For example, Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 (Electronic Security 
Perimeter(s)), Requirement R1.5 addresses monitoring of network traffic 
for malicious communications at the electronic security perimeter. 
Under CIP-005-6 Requirement R1.5, the only locations that require 
network security monitoring are the electronic security perimeter 
electronic access points for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
at control centers. Additionally, Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 
(System Security Management), Requirement R.4.1.3 addresses security 
monitoring and requires the entity to detect malicious code for all 
high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated 
electronic access control or monitoring systems, physical access 
control systems, and protected cyber assets. To comply with Reliability 
Standard CIP-007-6 R.4.1.3, responsible entities must install security 
monitoring tools at the device level but are not required to use INSM 
methods, such as intrusion detection systems.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Under Reliability Standard CIP-007-6, Requirement R.4.1.3, 
an entity may choose, but is not required, to use system-generated 
listing of network log in/log outs, or malicious code, or other 
types of monitored network traffic only at the perimeter of all 
medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems (and not within the trust 
zone, unlike INSM). The related Measures for this provision provide 
examples of acceptable evidence of compliance, including a paper or 
system-generated listing of monitored activities for which the BES 
Cyber System is configured to log and capable of detecting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Further, the currently effective CIP Reliability Standards do 
not require responsible entities to ensure that anomalous activity 
within the trust zone can be identified with a high level of confidence 
because the CIP Reliability Standards are focused on perimeter-based 
security with limited internal security controls. The three INSM 
security objectives--pertaining to (1) baselining, (2) monitoring and 
detecting unauthorized activity, and (3) identification of anomalous 
activity--aim to address this deficiency. As discussed below, new or 
modified Reliability Standards responsive to this final action must 
address these three objectives.
    23. For the reasons discussed below, in this final action we affirm 
the preliminary finding in the NOPR that the lack of INSM requirements 
in the currently effective CIP Reliability Standards constitutes a 
security gap. Further, we conclude that there is a sufficient basis for 
a directive to NERC to require INSM in the CIP Reliability Standards 
for all high impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external 
routable connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external 
routable connectivity.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ INSM architecture generally relies on external routable 
connectivity to achieve the full, real-time benefits of INSM, such 
as the capability to transmit collected data from network traffic 
and devices to a centralized location for further analysis by 
cybersecurity professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

A. Overview

    24. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), we direct NERC to develop 
new or modified CIP Reliability Standards that require applicable 
responsible entities to implement INSM for all high impact BES Cyber 
Systems with and without external routable connectivity and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity. Given the 
importance of timely addressing the identified security gap, we direct 
that NERC submit responsive new or modified CIP Reliability Standards 
within 15 months of the effective date of this final action. Based on 
the comments received in response to the NOPR, we determine that the 
record in this proceeding supports the development of mandatory 
requirements for the implementation of INSM for all high impact BES 
Cyber Systems with and without external routable connectivity and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity 
that are within the control of responsible entities that fall within 
the scope of our authority under FPA section 215.
    25. Overall, commenters agree with the benefits of implementing 
INSM as an additional layer of cybersecurity protection, although 
commenters differ on the contours of a directive to NERC to address the 
issue. NERC notes that while there may be challenges, INSM ``would be 
an appropriate approach'' to address the risks identified in the 
NOPR.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NERC Comments at 3; see also EPSA Comments at 3; Idaho 
Power Comments at 2; ISO/RTO Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. NERC and other commenters support new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards that address INSM for high impact BES Cyber 
Systems as a worthwhile improvement to the cybersecurity posture of the 
Bulk-Power System.\41\ While no entities altogether oppose INSM for 
high impact BES Cyber Systems, two commenters recommend limiting INSM 
at high impact BES Cyber Systems to those located in a control center 
or those systems with external routable connectivity.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ E.g., NERC Comments at 8; BPA Comments at 1; Trades 
Comments at 1.
    \42\ See ITC Comments at 7; Idaho Power Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Support for requiring the implementation of INSM for medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems varies, with a majority of commenters agreeing 
that extending INSM to at least some medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
could address the risks to the security of the Bulk-Power System 
identified in

[[Page 8359]]

the NOPR.\43\ Several other commenters also recognize that the NOPR's 
proposed directives regarding INSM are appropriate to address the 
threats that high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems face, and their 
potential impact on the reliable and secure operation of the Bulk-Power 
System.\44\ Other commenters, however, either oppose the proposal for 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems \45\ or advocate for delayed or limited 
inclusion of medium impact BES Cyber Systems within the scope of CIP 
Reliability Standards.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NERC Comments at 3; Consumers Comments at 1-2; Cynalytica 
Comments at 1; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 2-3; Juniper Comments at 
1-2; Microsoft Comments at 1; MRO NSRF Comments at 1-2; NAGF 
Comments at 1; Nozomi Networks Comments at 3; OT Coalition Comments 
at 3; TAPS Comments at 14; Conway Comments at 1.
    \44\ E.g., EPSA Comments at 3; Idaho Power Comments at 2; ISO/
RTO Comments at 3.
    \45\ BPA Comments at 2.
    \46\ EPSA Comments at 2; Idaho Power Comments at 2; Indicated 
Trade Associations Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Commenters raise challenges that may arise during development 
and implementation of CIP Reliability Standards requiring INSM for 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems that do not have external routable 
connectivity. These challenges include the large number of such medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems, which pose staffing and resource constraints 
for responsible entities and the possibility of supply chain 
constraints limiting the availability of necessary hardware and 
software tools to fully implement INSM.\47\ As discussed below, we are 
persuaded by the comments raising challenges and thus modify the NOPR 
proposal by directing that NERC develop new or modified Reliability 
Standards requiring implementation of INSM for medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems with external routable connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ E.g., BPA Comments at 3; EPSA Comments at 3; Idaho Power 
Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Further, we decline at this time to direct NERC to develop new 
or modified CIP Reliability Standards to require INSM for low impact 
BES Cyber Systems. NERC and most other commenters note that the risks 
associated with high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems do not apply 
to low impact BES Cyber Systems and that the costs associated with 
implementing INSM for low impact BES Cyber Systems would not result in 
a corresponding benefit to security.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ E.g., NERC Comments at 8; BPA Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF 
Comments at 4; NAGF Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Although we decline to direct NERC to develop new or modified 
CIP Reliability Standards requiring INSM for medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems without external routable connectivity and all low impact BES 
Cyber Systems in this final action, we recognize the importance of 
bolstering the cybersecurity of these systems. We believe that the 
current lack of visibility at low impact BES Cyber Systems, as well as 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems with similar configurations (i.e., 
serial-connected and other physical non-internet protocol based 
industrial control system communications), may leave systems vulnerable 
to cyberattacks that degrade the reliable and secure operation of the 
Bulk-Power System. However, we also recognize that extending INSM 
requirements to all low impact BES Cyber Systems would be difficult to 
implement or audit, given that there is neither a requirement for 
entities to identify their low impact BES Cyber Systems on an 
individual basis nor a requirement for entities to identify an 
electronic security perimeter for their low impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\49\ Therefore, as discussed below, we direct NERC, pursuant to 
Sec.  39.2(d) of the Commission's regulations,\50\ to submit to the 
Commission a report discussing the results of the study assessing the 
risks, implementation challenges, and potential solutions for all low 
impact BES Cyber Systems and medium impact BES Cyber Systems without 
external routable connectivity, within 12 months of the issuance of 
this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Reliability Standard CIP-003-8 (Security Management 
Controls), Requirement R2, requires that an entity with low impact 
BES Cyber Systems must implement a cybersecurity plan that includes 
elements specified in Attachment 1 of CIP-003-8. While entities must 
implement a plan that includes ``electronic access controls,'' the 
NERC defined term ``Electronic Security Perimeter'' is not mentioned 
in Attachment 1.
    \50\ 18 CFR 39.2(d) (the ERO shall provide the Commission such 
information as is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. We address below the following issues raised in the NOPR and 
NOPR comments: (1) the need for INSM Reliability Standards for all high 
impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external routable 
connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with and without 
external routable connectivity; (2) the extension of INSM to all low 
impact BES Cyber Systems; (3) security objectives of the new or 
modified Reliability Standards; and (4) standard development and 
implementation timelines. Further, we address the need for further 
study to support future action as warranted to require INSM for medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems without external routable connectivity and all 
low impact BES Cyber Systems.

B. INSM for High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems

    32. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop 
new or modified CIP Reliability Standards requiring that responsible 
entities implement INSM for their high and medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\51\ The Commission preliminarily found that INSM, as a 
fundamental element of a zero-trust architecture,\52\ should improve 
the cybersecurity posture of responsible entities with high and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems.\53\ The NOPR explained that the proposed 
directive centers on high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems to 
improve visibility within networks containing BES Cyber Systems whose 
compromise could have a significant impact on the reliable operation of 
the Bulk-Power System.\54\ The NOPR sought comments on all aspects of 
the proposed directive to NERC to modify the CIP Reliability Standards 
to require INSM for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at PP 29, 31.
    \52\ NIST defines zero-trust architecture as ``[a] security 
model, a set of system design principles, and a coordinated 
cybersecurity and system management strategy based on an 
acknowledgement that threats exist both inside and outside 
traditional network boundaries. The [zero-trust] security model 
eliminates implicit trust in any one element, component, node, or 
service and instead requires continuous verification of the 
operational picture via real-time information from multiple sources 
to determine access and other system responses.'' NIST, Computer 
Security Resource Center Glossary, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/zero_trust_architecture.
    \53\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 30.
    \54\ Id. P 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
a. Implementation of INSM for High Impact BES Cyber Systems
    33. NERC, BPA, Consumers, Cynalytica, ISO/RTO Council, Juniper 
Networks, Microsoft, MRO NSRF, NAGF, Nozomi Networks, and Conway 
support the NOPR's efforts to require INSM for high impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\55\ NERC states its support for INSM as an ``appropriate 
approach for consideration'' for high impact BES Cyber Systems.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NERC Comments at 3; Consumers Comments at 1-2; Cynalytica 
Comments at 1; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 2-3; Juniper Networks 
Comments at 1-2; Microsoft Comments at 1; MRO NSRF Comments at 1-2; 
NAGF Comments at 1; Nozomi Networks Comments at 1; Conway Comments 
at 1.
    \56\ NERC Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. BPA recommends that the Commission limit its initial rulemaking 
to only high impact BES Cyber Systems.\57\ BPA recognizes INSM as an 
important cybersecurity protection but

[[Page 8360]]

recommends phased adoption of INSM and limiting the initial rulemaking 
to high impact BES Cyber Systems, due to the resources and length of 
time needed to make such changes to industrial control systems. BPA 
recommends that the Commission, in a future proceeding, explore whether 
INSM requirements should apply to remote medium and low impact 
facilities without external routable connectivity.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ BPA Comments at 1.
    \58\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Indicated Trade Associations and Idaho Power recommend limiting 
the NOPR's proposal for high impact BES Cyber Systems. Indicated Trade 
Associations explains that by prioritizing high impact BES Cyber 
Systems, responsible entities would be able to ``gather operational 
experience with INSM technologies.'' \59\ While Indicated Trade 
Associations support implementation of INSM for high impact BES Cyber 
Systems, they also ask the Commission to convene a forum prior to 
issuing any directive. Idaho Power also tempers its support of the NOPR 
recommendations, emphasizing that its support of INSM within BES Cyber 
Systems is limited to those with external routable connectivity--
although also noting that the majority of high impact BES cyber systems 
likely already have external routable connectivity.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 9.
    \60\ Idaho Power Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. ITC's comments support limiting INSM to high impact BES Cyber 
Systems located in control centers because they have larger numbers of 
more diversely routed systems with greater external connectivity and 
therefore more access for an attacker to exploit.\61\ According to ITC, 
additional focus on the prevention of electronic security perimeter 
breaches continues to be the most effective overall approach to 
improving the cybersecurity of responsible entities. ITC also cautions 
that implementing INSM as contemplated by the NOPR could cause 
congestion and potentially slow the reactions of operators, who must 
observe and respond quickly to system and customer needs.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ ITC Comments at 2-3.
    \62\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of INSM, ITC states that it and many other entities already 
employ hub-and-spoke architecture \63\ for their electronic security 
perimeters to protect the BES Cyber Systems and BES Cyber Assets within 
them, which it asserts are inconsistent with (and in many cases, 
duplicative of) the NOPR proposed directives. Further, ITC explains 
that as its hub-and-spoke architecture uses few connections between BES 
Cyber Assets and BES Cyber Systems within each electronic security 
perimeter, monitoring of such ``fixed, small-scale network traffic'' 
provides little security benefit compared to the costs.\64\ ITC 
recommends that the Commission consider other cybersecurity strategies 
like application whitelisting \65\ for defense-in-depth, which it 
asserts provide comparable security to INSM.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ ITC explains that hub-and-spoke architecture uses many, 
relatively small, electronic security perimeters, each containing a 
small number of BES Cyber Systems and/or Assets that are often in 
close physical proximity to each other but using few connections 
between Cyber Assets and Systems within each electronic security 
perimeter. Id. at 4.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Whitelisting, also referred to as allowlisting, allows only 
selected authorized programs to run, while all other programs are 
blocked from running by default. It is used to establish a baseline 
for authorized applications and file locations and prevents any 
action that departs from that baseline. See CISA, Guidelines for 
Application Whitelisting, (2013), https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/sites/default/files/documents/Guidelines%20for%20Application%20Whitelisting%20in%20Industrial%20Control%20Systems_S508C.pdf.
    \66\ ITC Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Indicated Trade Associations and NAGF both note that entities 
may not have the same internal networks or architectures and that some 
may have implemented network segmentation or micro-segmentation of 
their networks.\67\ NAGF explains that applying a complex and costly 
INSM infrastructure may disincentivize the use of segmentation.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 17; NAGF Comments 
at 2. Network segmentation is one way of improving security by 
dividing a larger network into multiple segments, which each act as 
their own small network.
    \68\ NAGF Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Implementation of INSM for Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
    38. NERC, Consumers, Cynalytica, ISO/RTO Council, Juniper Networks, 
Microsoft, MRO NSRF, NAGF, Nozomi Networks, and Conway support the 
NOPR's efforts to require INSM for medium impact BES Cyber Systems.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ NERC Comments at 3; Consumers Comments at 1-2; Cynalytica 
Comments at 1; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 2-3; Juniper Networks 
Comments at 1-2; Microsoft Comments at 1; MRO NSRF Comments at 1-2; 
NAGF Comments at 1; Nozomi Networks Comments at 1; Conway Comments 
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. NERC states that it supports the efforts to address the risks 
identified in the NOPR (such as a bad actor leveraging vendors or 
others with authorized access to a network to attack these systems) and 
agrees that INSM is an appropriate approach to address such risks.\70\ 
NERC comments that INSM could benefit the CIP Reliability Standards as 
a ``consistent means of gaining visibility and awareness'' within an 
electronic security perimeter.\71\ Furthermore, NERC recognizes ``the 
importance of maturing security controls pertaining to zero-trust 
principles within Reliability Standards'' and agrees with the NOPR that 
INSM would advance responsible entities' cybersecurity posture towards 
zero-trust architecture.\72\ Both NERC and Conway explain that INSM 
ensures that there is monitoring of east-west endpoint to endpoint 
communications internal to the electronic security perimeter.\73\ ISO/
RTO Council and MRO NSRF, also supporting the NOPR proposal, state that 
systems solutions for anomaly detection, such as east-west monitoring, 
allow for more efficient summarizing of data and identification of 
anomalies.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ NERC Comments at 3.
    \71\ Id. at 5.
    \72\ Id. at 6.
    \73\ NERC Comments at 4-5; Conway Comments at 2.
    \74\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. NAGF supports the NOPR proposal and states that INSM will 
complement existing network security perimeter monitoring requirements 
for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems through improved internal 
network communications visibility.\75\ In support of the NOPR proposal, 
Consumers notes that it has already independently concluded that INSM 
warrants investment and has implemented INSM for most of its high and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems within an electronic security 
perimeter.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ NAGF Comments at 1.
    \76\ Consumers Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Comments from technology vendors support the NOPR's proposed 
directives to add INSM to the NERC CIP Reliability Standards. 
Cynalytica and Microsoft both point to INSM as being crucial to a zero-
trust strategy.\77\ Cynalytica further opines ``that all BES Cyber 
Systems should be monitored to ensure the visibility and operational 
situational awareness that a true zero-trust strategy brings in support 
of critical infrastructure resiliency.'' \78\ Microsoft also supports 
directing NERC to develop Reliability Standards that require INSM for 
high and medium

[[Page 8361]]

impact BES Cyber Systems.\79\ Nozomi and Juniper Networks also support 
the proposal, asserting that, given the increasingly sophisticated 
methods by which attackers gain access to critical systems, it is 
critical that entities move beyond protection of the electronic 
security perimeter and implement dynamic, persistent monitoring 
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Cynalytica Comments at 1; Microsoft Comments at 3 
(asserting that the Commission's recommendations for implementation 
of INSM on BES Cyber Systems is a cybersecurity best practice and is 
consistent with a zero-trust security model and is consistent with 
the White House zero-trust strategy published in January 2022 
(citing White House, Moving the U.S. Government Toward Zero Trust 
Cybersecurity Principles (Jan. 26, 2022), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/M-22-09.pdf)).
    \78\ Cynalytica Comments at 4.
    \79\ Microsoft Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. CDWR, Electricity Canada, the OT Coalition, Reclamation, and 
TAPs focus their comments on the effectiveness of using INSM to achieve 
cybersecurity goals rather than explicitly supporting or opposing the 
NOPR proposal to implement INSM for high and medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\80\ For example, CDWR requests that the Commission consider 
whether directives necessary to provide an adequate level of 
reliability and security are also cost effective.\81\ And Electricity 
Canada states that it agrees that INSM is an important part of an 
overall cybersecurity strategy when implemented at appropriate 
locations in a network.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ CDWR Comments at 4; Electricity Canada Comments at 2; OT 
Coalition Comments at 3-4; Reclamation Comments at 3; TAPS Comments 
at 1.
    \81\ CDWR Comments at 4.
    \82\ Electricity Canada Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Limiting INSM for Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems Based on External 
Routable Connectivity
    43. Although the NOPR did not distinguish the proposed directive 
for medium impact BES Cyber Systems by risk, their location at control 
centers, or the existence of external routable connectivity, commenters 
raise the possibility of limiting INSM on those bases.
    44. EPSA, supporting Indicated Trade Associations' request for the 
Commission to convene a forum prior to issuing any directive, argues 
that while high impact BES Cyber Systems are indisputably worthy of 
INSM measures, any new requirements imposed on medium impact locations 
should be commensurate with the risk posed by each individual location 
that could be compromised. Therefore, EPSA asserts that if the 
Commission does act before convening a forum, that it phase in new 
requirements based on risk, for example beginning with high impact BES 
Cyber Systems and only medium impact BES Cyber Systems at control 
centers. EPSA states that this phased implementation would allow 
entities to account for challenges while controlling costs and 
constraints.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ EPSA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. ITC and Indicated Trade Associations support INSM for medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems located at control centers. ITC asserts that 
the Commission could direct NERC to develop a Reliability Standard 
which requires INSM only for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
within control centers to achieve a more balanced risk-to-cost outcome. 
According to ITC, controls centers generally do contain more diversely 
routed Cyber Systems with greater external connectivity beyond the 
electronic security perimeter, which provides more access for an 
attacker to exploit.\84\ Further, as ITC explains, control centers' 
electronic security perimeters already require network monitoring that 
reduces the difficulty and expense of implementing INSM at these 
locations.\85\ Similarly, while Indicated Trade Associations agree with 
the Commission that implementation of INSM may improve the security 
posture of entities owning or operating high impact BES Cyber Systems 
and ``holds significant potential to increase grid visibility and 
capability of detecting and mitigating malicious activity,'' \86\ they 
propose limiting the implementation to high impact BES Cyber Systems 
and medium impact BES Cyber Systems located at control centers.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ ITC Comments at 7.
    \85\ Id.
    \86\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 7.
    \87\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Idaho Power states that it agrees with the Commission that 
implementing INSM at medium impact BES Cyber Systems, in particular 
those with external routable connectivity, is ``justified and necessary 
for the threats these systems are facing.'' \88\ Idaho Power explains 
that BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity provide an 
additional remote attack vector which is not present in systems without 
it, and warns that if there is a requirement for INSM for systems that 
do not currently have external routable connectivity, entities may add 
external routable connectivity (and therefore an additional attack 
vector) in order to meet the INSM requirements.\89\ Idaho Power 
recommends that, if the Commission were to require INSM at high and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems, the Commission should limit the 
directive to BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity, 
since external routable connectivity is arguably needed to take full 
advantage of INSM.\90\ Although BPA recommends implementing INSM 
initially only at high impact BES Cyber Systems, it states that if the 
Commission orders implementation at medium impact BES Cyber Systems as 
well, the Commission should limit the implementation to medium impact 
BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Idaho Power Comments at 2.
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ BPA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Commenters point out the following concerns if this final 
action were to apply to all medium impact BES Cyber Systems, including 
those without external routable connectivity: (1) lengthy timelines for 
implementation; \92\ (2) lack of external routable connectivity at many 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems, which is needed to effectively 
implement INSM; \93\ (3) for large entities, the undertaking may be 
sizable given their wider footprint for monitoring and detecting; \94\ 
(4) already limited personnel would be stretched thin and there may be 
a shortage of qualified staff; \95\ and (5) costs would far exceed any 
potential cybersecurity benefit.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Id.
    \93\ Id. at 1, 3; Idaho Power Comments at 2.
    \94\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 10 (referring to 
large entities with multi-state footprints and several hundred 
physical locations).
    \95\ Id. at 2; EPSA Comments at 4; ITC Comments at 5; TAPS 
Comments at 4.
    \96\ ITC Comments at 4; TAPS Comments at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. In its comments opposing INSM for medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems, BPA explains that many medium impact BES Cyber Systems do not 
have external routable connectivity and that these systems therefore 
pose minimal risk to intrusion and do not strongly implicate the INSM 
objectives identified by the Commission.\97\ Similar to BPA, Indicated 
Trade Associations assert that not all medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
have external routable connectivity and therefore conclude that without 
this attack surface, there is less to monitor.\98\ Furthermore, 
Indicated Trade Associations argue that medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
without external routable connectivity do not contain the same risk, or 
pose the same potential impact, as medium impact BES Cyber Systems with 
external routable connectivity because an attacker does not have a path 
to move beyond the local trust zone.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ BPA Comments at 4.
    \98\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 9.
    \99\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    49. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), we direct NERC to develop 
new or modified CIP Reliability Standards that require INSM for CIP-
networked environments for all high impact BES

[[Page 8362]]

Cyber Systems with and without external routable connectivity and 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity. We 
determine that requirements to implement INSM as we direct in this 
final action will fill a gap in the current suite of CIP Reliability 
Standards and improve the cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-Power 
System.\100\ Specifically, a requirement for INSM that augments 
existing perimeter defenses will increase network visibility so that an 
entity may understand what is occurring in its CIP-networked 
environment and, thus, improve capability to timely detect potential 
compromises.\101\ INSM also allows for the collection of data and 
analysis required to implement a defense strategy, improves an entity's 
incident investigation capabilities, and increases the likelihood that 
an entity can better protect itself from a future cyberattack and 
address any security gaps the attacker was able to exploit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See, e.g., NERC Comments at 4-5 (current CIP Standards 
require ``malicious communications monitoring at the Electronic 
Access Point on the [electronic security perimeter], not necessarily 
monitoring of activity of those who already have access to the 
network'').
    \101\ Id. at 5 (``CIP Reliability Standards could benefit from 
consideration of internal network security monitoring requirements 
as a consistent means of gaining visibility and awareness within an 
[electronic security perimeter].'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Moreover, the NOPR identified certain cyber-related risks that 
implementation of INSM could mitigate through early detection, such as 
a supply chain attack leveraging malicious updates from a known 
software vendor (i.e., SolarWinds attack) and ransomware attacks.\102\ 
NERC and other commenters agree that INSM is an appropriate approach to 
address such risks.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at PP 17-19.
    \103\ E.g., NERC Comments at 6; Juniper Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. We disagree with ITC's rationale for opposing the NOPR 
proposal. In particular, we disagree with ITC's assertions that the 
NOPR proposals are an ``overly aggressive implementation of'' zero-
trust architecture.\104\ As explained in the NOPR, while INSM is a 
fundamental element of the zero-trust architecture, it is only one of 
many aspects.\105\ Furthermore, ITC presents its statement that there 
would only be little monitoring INSM could perform of its fixed, small-
scale network traffic, and thus provide ITC little benefit,\106\ 
without further context or explanation. Additionally, we disagree with 
ITC's assertion that application whitelisting provides comparable 
security to INSM. Application whitelisting is a security tool 
implemented at the cyber asset level and does not monitor network 
traffic, which is the purpose of INSM. Therefore, application 
whitelisting and INSM are two distinct components of a defense-in-depth 
strategy and two distinct components of zero-trust architecture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ ITC Comments at 2.
    \105\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 30.
    \106\ ITC Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. We are also not persuaded by ITC's objections to the NOPR 
proposal based on ITC's claims regarding the relative limited 
vulnerability of hub-and-spoke networks. A hub-and-spoke connection is 
bound on both sides by electronic security perimeters. Like any other 
BES Cyber Asset, the electronic access points of the hub and spoke 
configuration are addressed by the currently effective CIP Reliability 
Standards, but there is currently no required monitoring of network 
traffic within the hub and spoke electronic security perimeters. We 
disagree with ITC's assertion that hub-and-spoke architecture has lower 
risk because it uses few connections between Cyber Assets and Cyber 
Systems within each electronic security perimeter.\107\ INSM is a 
cybersecurity capability that is indifferent to the architecture to 
which it is applied. INSM is intended to monitor east-west network 
traffic that does not traverse the access point. An architecture like 
hub-and-spoke is not a substitute for a cybersecurity capability like 
INSM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. Finally, we disagree with ITC's assertion that the ``NOPR's 
approach is also inconsistent with the Commission's long-standing risk-
based approach to reliability.'' \108\ The security objectives proposed 
in the INSM NOPR are risk-based and objective.\109\ Furthermore, 
malicious actors that compromise BES Cyber Systems within an electronic 
security perimeter could have the opportunity to perform the same 
functions as an authorized user, which includes operation of the Bulk-
Power System, as demonstrated by the Ukraine attacks referenced in the 
INSM NOPR.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Id.
    \109\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 31.
    \110\ Id. P 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. We are not persuaded by BPA's request to limit our directive to 
INSM for high impact BES Cyber Assets based on resource and timing 
concerns nor persuaded by ITC's assertion that INSM would lead to 
congestion. Rather, we believe that our decision to limit our directive 
at this time to those medium impact BES Cyber Assets with external 
routable connectivity strikes a proper balance between limited 
resources and the security benefits of INSM and adequately addresses 
BPA's concerns and that technical concerns are better addressed during 
NERC's standards drafting process or during the implementation of INSM. 
Similarly, NAGF and Indicated Trade Associations' concern that 
requiring INSM may discourage entities from using greater network 
segmentation to enhance security is a specific technical concern better 
raised and addressed during NERC's standards drafting process.
    55. We agree with commenters that articulate the various benefits 
of INSM. NERC and other commenters state that INSM ensures that there 
is monitoring of east-west endpoint-to-endpoint communications internal 
to the electronic security perimeter.\111\ Likewise, ISO/RTO Council 
and MRO NSRF explain that systems solutions for anomaly detection, such 
as east-west monitoring, allow for more efficient summarizing of data 
and identification of anomalies.\112\ Accordingly, the record in this 
proceeding supports incorporating INSM requirements into the CIP 
Standards for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems, as set forth in 
this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ NERC Comments at 4-5; Conway Comments at 2.
    \112\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. We are not persuaded by Indicated Trade Associations' and ITC's 
suggestions to limit application of INSM to high impact BES Cyber 
Systems and medium impact BES Cyber Systems located at control 
centers.\113\ Limiting application of INSM to high impact BES Cyber 
Systems and medium impact BES Cyber Systems located at control centers 
would constitute too narrow an approach because the trust zone 
associated with medium impact BES Cyber Systems encompasses systems 
with a definitive potential to affect Bulk-Power System reliability. We 
are, however, persuaded by commenters to limit the scope of our 
directive with regard to medium impact BES Cyber Systems to those with 
external routable connectivity. Idaho Power argues that the presence of 
external routable connectivity is an appropriate limiting factor for 
the directive,\114\ and BPA, while it recommends applying the directive 
only to high impact BES Cyber Systems, states that if the directive 
encompasses medium impact BES Cyber Systems then it should apply only 
to medium impact BES Cyber Systems

[[Page 8363]]

with external routable connectivity.\115\ Control centers generally 
already have external routable connectivity and are thus encompassed by 
a directive to limit application of INSM for medium impact BES Cyber 
Systems on the basis of external routable connectivity. For these 
reasons, we believe that external routable connectivity is a preferable 
approach to targeting the application of INSM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ ITC Comments at 7; Indicated Trade Associations Comments 
at 11.
    \114\ Idaho Power Comments at 2.
    \115\ BPA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Although not addressed in the NOPR, multiple commenters raised 
concerns regarding the efficacy and practicality of requiring 
implementation of INSM for medium impact BES Cyber Systems that lack 
external routable connectivity.\116\ Simply stated, external routable 
connectivity allows remote communication with a BES Cyber System 
through use of a high-speed internet service to send information over a 
network. Typically, external routable connectivity allows higher 
quality data to flow from the field devices at substations to a 
centralized location where cybersecurity professionals can perform 
further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Id.; EPSA Comments at 2; Idaho Power Comments at 1; ITC 
Comments at 7; Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Commenters explain that a system without external routable 
connectivity, while not risk-free, is less vulnerable to attack than 
systems with external routable connectivity.\117\ Likewise, according 
to commenters, external routable connectivity is necessary to achieve 
the full, real-time benefits of INSM.\118\ In consideration of these 
concerns, we modify the NOPR proposal and direct NERC to develop new or 
modified CIP Reliability Standards that require INSM for medium impact 
BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ BPA Comments at 4; Indicated Trade Associations Comments 
at 9; Idaho Power Comments at 2. Medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
that lack external routable connectivity remain vulnerable to 
insider threats and supply chain attacks.
    \118\ See, e.g., BPA Comments at 2; Idaho Power Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. While we agree with commenters regarding the challenges with 
implementing INSM for medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external 
routable connectivity such as costs and stretching thin limited 
resources,\119\ we continue to believe that, if these challenges can be 
adequately addressed, implementation of INSM for all medium impact BES 
Cyber Systems would improve the cybersecurity posture of the Bulk-Power 
System by allowing early detection and response to cyber intrusions in 
BES Cyber Systems. Although we decline Indicated Trade Associations' 
request to convene a forum to discuss INSM in the proceeding prior to a 
directive as the robust comments provide an adequate basis for this 
final action, we are directing NERC to conduct a study that pertains, 
inter alia, to the challenges of, and solutions for, implementing INSM 
at medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external routable 
connectivity and all low impact BES Cyber Systems, as discussed in more 
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ E.g., Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. INSM for Low Impact BES Cyber Systems

    60. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that its proposal centered 
on high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems but sought comment on the 
usefulness and practicality of implementing INSM to detect malicious 
activity in networks with low impact BES Cyber Systems, including any 
potential benefits, technical barriers and associated costs.\120\ Low 
impact BES Cyber Systems have fewer security controls and, unlike high 
and medium impact BES Systems, are not subject to monitoring at the 
network perimeter access point(s). The Commission particularly sought 
comment on whether the same risks associated with high and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems apply to low impact BES Cyber Systems, 
including escalating privileges, moving inside the CIP-networked 
environment, and executing unauthorized code. The Commission further 
sought comment on the appropriate scope of coverage for INSM for low 
impact BES Cyber Systems, to the extent such risks exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. The Commission suggested that there may be benefits to having 
INSM requirements apply to a defined subset of low impact BES Cyber 
Systems and sought comment on possible criteria or methodology for 
identifying an appropriate subset of low impact BES Cyber Systems that 
could benefit from INSM.\121\ The Commission further pointed out that 
there are currently no CIP requirements for low impact BES Cyber 
Systems for monitoring communications at the electronic security 
perimeter and therefore asked: (1) whether it makes sense to require 
INSM while perimeter monitoring is not required; and (2) would it be 
appropriate to address both perimeter monitoring and INSM for low 
impact BES Cyber Systems.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Id. P 34.
    \122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    62. Technology solutions vendors Cynalytica, Microsoft, Nozomi 
Networks, and OT Coalition support extending INSM to low impact BES 
Cyber Systems.\123\ Microsoft recommends directing the implementation 
of INSM for low impact BES Cyber Systems ``to the maximum extent 
practicable.'' \124\ Cynalytica and Microsoft comment that risks within 
low impact BES Cyber Systems are similar to those within higher impact 
systems.\125\ Cynalytica, Microsoft, and Nozomi Networks all assert 
that requiring all BES Cyber Systems to implement INSM at this time 
would reduce cybersecurity risk and exposure.\126\ Cynalytica is of the 
opinion that ``all BES Cyber Systems should be monitored to ensure the 
visibility and operational situational awareness,'' as low impact BES 
Cyber Systems ``could be used for operational intelligence gathering, 
capabilities testing, or could be used to pivot among internal 
systems.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Cynalytica Comments at 4; Microsoft Comments at 1; Nozomi 
Networks Comments at 3; OT Coalition Comments at 3-4.
    \124\ Microsoft Comments at 1.
    \125\ Cynalytica Comments at 4; Microsoft Comments at 11.
    \126\ Cynalytica Comments at 4; Microsoft Comments at 1; Nozomi 
Networks Comments at 3.
    \127\ Cynalytica Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Microsoft elaborates that low impact BES Cyber Systems such as 
distributed energy resources, along with their increasing use, may 
increase the potential risks associated with low impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\128\ Nozomi Networks recommends extending INSM to low impact 
BES Cyber Systems as a possible way to both improve their security 
risks and posture over time, as well as identify potential supply chain 
security issues.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Microsoft Comments at 11.
    \129\ Nozomi Networks Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. OT Coalition, supporting a phased implementation of INSM for 
low impact BES Cyber Systems, warns that failure to account for the 
risk of a low impact BES Cyber System ``being used as a lateral attack 
vector is inexcusable.'' \130\ OT Coalition recommends that INSM-
related and perimeter monitoring requirements should be phased in over 
time, e.g., over the course of five years and moving from larger to 
smaller entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ OT Coalition Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Other commenters, however, advocate against requiring INSM at 
low impact BES Cyber Systems at this time. NERC, BPA, MRO NSRF, and 
NAGF oppose requiring INSM for low impact BES Cyber Systems as part of 
this

[[Page 8364]]

proceeding because of the extensive revisions to the CIP Reliability 
Standards that would be needed and the correspondingly longer time such 
revisions would take to implement.\131\ For example, NERC and MRO NSRF 
point to the lack of any current requirement for a list of low impact 
BES Cyber Systems.\132\ NERC and MRO NSRF also note that there is no 
current requirement for low impact BES Cyber Systems to have an 
electronic security perimeter.\133\ Thus, according to MRO NSRF, to 
properly enact INSM at facilities with low impact BES Cyber Systems 
would require upgrading all such facilities to one with the same 
network architecture, protections, and monitoring as that of a facility 
with high or medium BES Cyber Systems and that the ``cost and effort 
associated with such an enterprise would not be justified.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ NERC Comments at 8; BPA Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF Comments 
at 4; NAGF Comments at 4.
    \132\ NERC Comments at 8-9; MRO NSRF Comments at 4 (``Analysis 
requires not just a monitoring system but a baseline inventory of 
BES Cyber Assets to have something to benchmark against.'').
    \133\ Id.
    \134\ MRO NSRF Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. NERC, BPA, CDWR, Consumers, EPSA, Idaho Power, MRO NSRF, NAGF, 
TAPS, Conway, and Indicated Trade Associations all caution that 
extending INSM requirements to low impact BES Cyber Systems at this 
time would be infeasible or impractical from a cost, time, and 
technical standpoint.\135\ Indicated Trade Associations, BPA, EPSA, 
TAPS, and CDWR explain that the sheer number of low impact BES Cyber 
Systems, which far exceeds that of medium and high impact BES Cyber 
Systems, makes implementation of INSM at low impact BES Cyber Systems 
impractical at this time, from a cost and time commitment 
perspective.\136\ Reclamation notes that low impact BES Cyber Systems 
pose inherently less risk and therefore may not benefit from INSM as 
much as medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems.\137\ NERC and other 
commenters explain that procuring the necessary support equipment, such 
as relays, remote terminal units, and communications processors, would 
be prohibitively expensive due to issues such as limited bandwidth, 
remote proximity of the systems, and greater variety of communications 
protocols.\138\ NERC states that expanding INSM requirements to apply 
to low impact BES Cyber Systems would also pose scalability and 
manageability issues, such as considering whether communications paths 
would need to be enhanced to correct any latency or real-time 
operations impact.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ NERC Comments at 8-9; BPA Comments at 4-5; CDWR Comments 
at 4; Consumers Comments at 2; EPSA Comments at 4-5; Idaho Power 
Comments at 2-3; MRO NSRF Comments at 4; NAGF Comments at 4; TAPS 
Comments at 4-9; Conway Comments at 1; Indicated Trade Associations 
Comments at 28.
    \136\ BPA Comments at 4; CDWR Comments at 4; EPSA Comments at 4; 
TAPS Comments at 8; Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 28.
    \137\ Reclamation Comments at 3.
    \138\ NERC Comments at 8-9; Idaho Power Comments at 2-3; TAPS 
Comments at 5-6; Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 28.
    \139\ NERC Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. NAGF and Consumers assert that requiring INSM implementation 
for low impact BES Cyber Systems could displace efforts relating to 
higher impact systems.\140\ TAPS comments that there are limited 
incremental reliability benefits due to low impact BES Cyber Systems 
being less likely to result in instability, uncontrolled separation, or 
cascading failure. TAPS further argues that there are technical 
barriers stemming from the diversity of low impact BES Cyber Systems 
requiring customized implementation and highly specialized staff.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Consumers Comments at 2; NAGF Comments at 4.
    \141\ TAPS Comments at 3, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    68. We find comments explaining the challenges of extending INSM 
requirements to all low impact BES Cyber Systems are persuasive, and we 
therefore decline to direct NERC to extend requirements for INSM to all 
low impact BES Cyber Systems at this time. We agree with commenters 
such as Microsoft, Cynalytica, and Nozomi Networks that the risks 
within low impact BES Cyber Systems are similar to those within higher 
impact systems and that implementing INSM at low impact BES Cyber 
Systems would reduce cybersecurity risk and improve the overall 
security posture of the Bulk-Power System. Nevertheless, we are 
persuaded by NERC and other commenters that implementing INSM at all 
low impact BES Cyber Systems could present certain challenges that 
makes such a directive at this time impractical. We agree that 
extending INSM requirements to all low impact BES Cyber Systems could 
be difficult to scope, implement, or audit, given that there is no 
requirement for entities to individually identify their low impact BES 
Cyber Systems or electronic security perimeters for their low impact 
BES Cyber Systems. Additionally, we accept the explanation of NERC and 
other commenters that extending INSM to low impact BES Cyber Systems 
could pose scalability and manageability issues,\142\ pose challenges 
to limited company resources and specialization issues for locations 
with small support staff,\143\ and require more highly specialized 
staff.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ NERC Comments at 8-9.
    \143\ NAGF Comments at 4.
    \144\ TAPS Comments at 3, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Although declining to direct NERC at this time to do so, we 
believe that in the longer term it may be necessary that INSM be 
extended to at least some subset of low impact BES Cyber Assets to 
address the known risks associated with these assets. To address the 
challenges raised by commenters and support this goal, we direct NERC 
to study the hurdles and possible solutions of implementing INSM at all 
low impact BES Cyber Assets, as discussed below.

D. Security Objectives

    70. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards requiring INSM for high and medium impact BES 
Cyber Systems should address three security objectives pertaining to 
INSM.\145\ First, any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should 
address the need for each responsible entity to develop a baseline for 
their network traffic, specifically for security purposes. Second, any 
new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should address the need for 
responsible entities to monitor for and detect unauthorized activity, 
connections, devices, and software inside the CIP-networked 
environment. Third, any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards 
should address the ability to support operations and response by 
requiring responsible entities to ensure that anomalous activity can be 
identified to a high level of confidence by: (1) logging network 
traffic at a sufficient level of detail; (2) maintaining logs and other 
data collected regarding network traffic; and (3) implementing measures 
to minimize the likelihood of an attacker removing evidence of their 
tactics, techniques, and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    71. Cynalytica characterizes the security objectives listed in the 
NOPR as a ``solid foundation'' and recommends that the CIP Reliability 
Standards adopt the objectives.\146\ Microsoft, who strongly advocates 
for the implementation of the zero-trust security model, asserts that 
the security objectives from the NOPR align with

[[Page 8365]]

this model and are critical to maintaining network visibility to drive 
threat detection and response in real time.\147\ NAGF characterizes the 
security objectives listed in the NOPR as ``acceptable and meaningful'' 
and asserts that INSM will complement existing network perimeter 
monitoring requirements.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Cynalytica Comments at 3.
    \147\ Microsoft Comments at 2, 4.
    \148\ NAGF Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. Specific to the security objectives proposed in the NOPR, 
commenters provide guidance for the development of a baseline of 
network traffic and suggest there could be alternative approaches. 
Electricity Canada asserts that there may be other approaches to 
analyzing network traffic besides baselining and suggests adopting 
``simplified language'' that would not exclude the use of a type of 
technology based on the type of security analysis performed.\149\ 
Electricity Canada recommends that the security objective should be to 
monitor for and detect unauthorized ``network communication 
protocols,'' rather than unauthorized ``software.'' \150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Electricity Canada at 2.
    \150\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. Indicated Trade Associations explain that establishing a 
baseline of legitimate network traffic is challenging and calls for 
significant judgments unique to the implementation of INSM and that in 
this context baselining can have many different meanings.\151\ 
According to Indicated Trade Associations, approaches to baselining 
could include: (1) simply differentiating between alerts and false 
positives as opposed to actual malicious activity; and (2) an expansive 
approach of fully mapping every packet between every asset on a 
network. Indicated Trade Associations states that the expenses and 
challenges of baselining increase if an expansive definition of 
baselining is adopted and recommends convening a forum to discuss and 
agree upon a workable definition.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 13-14.
    \152\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. Conway urges that the Commission include in its security 
objectives language that focuses on desired operational capabilities, 
which Conway avers would help shape individual analyst roles and 
response actions and inform system operators and national response to 
information shared.\153\ Conway explains that ``[i]n order for the INSM 
. . . technologies to be meaningful or useful the sensors and 
implementation approach must be ICS [industrial control systems] 
protocol aware and provide detections.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Conway Comments at 4.
    \154\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. Beyond the proposed security objectives, multiple commenters 
generally support an objective, prioritized, flexible, and risk-based 
approach to the implementation of INSM to BES Cyber Systems. BPA and 
NAGF advocate for flexibility for the industry to develop risk-based 
criteria for implementation of INSM to allow entities to focus on their 
most important assets first and then consider whether other assets 
should be protected in the same manner.\155\ ISO/RTO Council and MRO 
NSRF emphasize that any new or modified CIP reliability standards 
should allow registered entities the necessary flexibility to implement 
the INSM solution most appropriate for their own environments.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ BPA Comments at 5; NAGF Comments at 4.
    \156\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. Commenters suggest other security objectives that the 
Commission and NERC should prioritize. For example, NAGF suggests an 
objective of maintaining logs and records of network activities.\157\ 
Microsoft recommends that the Commission include a security objective 
to ensure that the operator has the staff and procedures in place to 
drive cybersecurity improvements from its INSM solution.\158\ Microsoft 
explains that effective INSM implementation requires trained staff with 
the ability to respond to a pre-defined set of alerts with the security 
operations center or the network operations center. Microsoft further 
recommends a security objective requiring an intrusion detection system 
to perform threat vector analysis for assets on the network, to aid 
security personnel in prioritizing patching targets in its critical 
systems.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ NAGF Comments at 1.
    \158\ Microsoft Comments at 9-10.
    \159\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    77. We agree with commenters that, as a general matter, the CIP 
Reliability Standards should be objective-based, technology neutral, 
and provide flexibility to entities in identifying how to address the 
three security objectives identified in the NOPR.
    78. Regarding comments to include security objectives pertaining to 
adequate staffing and training, we believe that these goals are 
necessary to achieve the three objectives stated in the NOPR and need 
not be set out as separate objectives.\160\ As described above, 
commenters raise a number of thoughts and suggestions pertaining to 
baselining, packet-level monitoring, logging, and capture of internal 
network traffic.\161\ We expand our second security objective based on 
Electricity Canada's recommendation to replace software with network 
communication protocols by adding ``network communication protocols'' 
to the objective. However, we do not adopt other recommendations, 
because these matters are better raised during NERC's standards 
drafting process. We are not persuaded that such level of detail is 
useful to incorporate within the Commission's final action. Instead, 
NERC's standards drafting process is the appropriate forum to determine 
the level of detail necessary to ensure the security objectives are met 
by any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Id. at 9-10.
    \161\ See, e.g., Electricity Canada Comments at 2; EPSA Comments 
at 2-6; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 4-5; MRO NSRF Comments at 2; 
NAGF Comments at 1; Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. We direct NERC to ensure that the new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards that require security controls for INSM for all 
high impact BES Cyber Systems with and without external routable 
connectivity and medium impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable 
connectivity address three security objectives for east-west network 
traffic. First, any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should 
address the need for each responsible entity to develop a baseline for 
their network traffic by analyzing network traffic and data flows for 
security purposes. Second, any new or modified CIP Reliability 
Standards should address the need for responsible entities to monitor 
for and detect unauthorized activity, connections, devices, network 
communication protocols, and software inside the CIP-networked 
environment, as well as encompass awareness of protocols used in 
industrial control systems.\162\ Third, in response to the comments 
requesting that any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards should be 
objective-based, we clarify our NOPR proposal so that it is not 
oriented toward specific technologies or activities, as discussed 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ E.g., Conway Comments at 2; CISA, Industrial Control 
Systems Cybersecurity Initiative: Considerations for ICS/OT 
Monitoring Technologies with an Emphasis on Detection and 
Information Sharing, at 2 (2021), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICS-Monitoring-Technology-Considerations-Final-v2_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. We agree that any new or modified CIP Reliability Standards 
should provide flexibility to responsible entities in determining the 
best way to identify anomalous activity to a high level of confidence, 
so long as those

[[Page 8366]]

methods ensure: (1) logging of network traffic (we note that packet 
capture is one means of accomplishing this goal); (2) maintaining those 
logs, and other data collected, regarding network traffic that are of 
sufficient data fidelity to draw meaningful conclusions and support 
incident investigation; and (3) maintaining the integrity of those logs 
and other data by implementing measures to minimize the likelihood of 
an attacker removing evidence of their tactics, techniques, and 
procedures (maintaining the integrity of logs and other data assures an 
entity that analysis and findings from incident investigations are 
representative of the actual incident and can aid in the mitigation of 
current and future similar compromises).

E. Standards Development Timeframe

    81. The Commission in the INSM NOPR requested comments on 
reasonable timeframes for expeditiously developing and implementing 
Reliability Standards for INSM given the importance of addressing this 
reliability gap.\163\ The INSM NOPR also inquired as to potential 
challenges to implementing INSM (e.g., cost, availability of 
specialized resources, and documenting compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ INSM NOPR, 178 FERC ] 61,038 at P 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    82. Among the few comments on the timeframe for developing new or 
modified standards addressing INSM, ISO/RTO Council suggests a one-to-
two-year timeframe is appropriate.\164\ NERC requests that, given the 
complexity of the subject matter, the Commission defer to NERC 
regarding the appropriate timeline for standards development to better 
assure that all relevant issues can receive the proper consideration in 
the standards development process.\165\ Other commenters express 
caution, and counsel the Commission balance the competing needs of 
speed and quality in standards development.\166\ Others suggest an 
iterative or staggered approach to standards development.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3-6.
    \165\ NERC Comments at 3, 6-7.
    \166\ Reclamation Comments at 2; Cynalytica Comments at 3.
    \167\ NAGF Comments at 4; Conway Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. Regarding timeframes for implementation of INSM (i.e., after 
the proposed INSM standards become effective), commenters recommend 
timeframes for implementation ranging from two to ten years, depending 
on whether INSM is to be extended to high impact, medium impact, or low 
impact BES Cyber Systems. Microsoft suggests a minimum of two years for 
applicable registered entities to come into compliance with a new INSM 
reliability standard based on typically budget cycles. Microsoft also 
points out that entities would need to change their networks to include 
INSM during a shutdown period, which occurs every 12 to 18 months.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Microsoft Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. MRO NSRF and BPA aver that full implementation of INSM for high 
and medium impact BES Cyber Systems would require a minimum of three to 
five years, and MRO NSRF suggests a staggered implementation 
timeline.\169\ MRO NSRF cites several challenges that could affect the 
implementation timeline, including: (1) supply chain constraints if 
multiple entities are trying to obtain INSM tools in the same 
timeframe; (2) shortages of qualified staff; and (3) higher cost due to 
additional requirements, system configurations, and sudden increase in 
demand.\170\ MRO NSRF did not provide specific cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ MRO NSRF Comments at 3; BPA Comments at 3.
    \170\ MRO NSRF Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. Indicated Trade Associations do not provide a specific period 
but mention that implementing INSM for large entities would require a 
sizable undertaking, because doing so would entail installing new or 
upgraded network equipment, increasing network connectivity, and 
installing multiple INSM monitoring devices requiring aggregation to 
provide complete operating pictures or baselines.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Indicated Trade Associations Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    86. We direct NERC to submit responsive new or modified CIP 
Reliability Standards within 15 months of the effective date of this 
final action. We believe that a 15-month deadline would provide 
sufficient time for NERC to develop responsive new or modified 
Standards within NERC's standards development process. This deadline is 
within the range of ISO/RTO Council's suggested one-to-two-year 
timeframe. Regarding NERC's request that the Commission not set a 
deadline, we believe that most of the complexities cited by NERC are 
resolved by our decision not to extend INSM in this final action to low 
impact BES Cyber Systems and medium impact BES Cyber Systems without 
external routable connectivity.
    87. We decline to direct a specific implementation timeframe for 
any new or modified standards. Commenters provide a wide range of 
potential implementation timeframes and raise concerns regarding 
resource availability and the need for flexibility in implementing new 
or modified INSM Reliability Standards. Rather than setting the 
implementation timeframe at this time, we believe NERC should propose 
an implementation period by balancing the various concerns raised by 
commenters as well as the need to timely address the identified gap in 
the CIP Standards pertaining to INSM. When submitting the proposed CIP 
Standards, NERC should provide its rationale for the chosen 
implementation timeframe.

F. NERC Study and Report on INSM Implementation

    88. While determining above that it is premature to require INSM 
for medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external routable 
connectivity and all low impact BES Cyber Systems, we recognize the 
importance of bolstering the cybersecurity of those systems. We believe 
that extending INSM to all medium impact BES Cyber Systems and at least 
a subset of low impact BES Cyber Systems in the future could be 
necessary to protect the security and the reliability of the Bulk-Power 
System. To provide a basis for such action, we direct NERC, pursuant to 
Sec.  39.2(d) of the Commission's regulations,\172\ to conduct a study 
to guide the implementation of INSM, or other mitigation strategies, 
for medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external routable 
connectivity and all low impact BES Cyber Systems. The study shall 
focus on two main topics: (1) risk and (2) challenges and solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 18 CFR 39.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    89. First, regarding risk, NERC should collect from registered 
entities information on the number of low impact and medium impact BES 
Cyber Systems that would not be subject to the new or revised 
Reliability Standards, which would inform the scope of the risk from 
systems without INSM. Next, NERC should provide an analysis regarding 
the substantive risks posed by these BES Cyber Systems operating 
without the implementation of INSM. Specifically, NERC should determine 
the quantity of: (1) substation and generation locations that contain 
medium impact BES Cyber Systems without external routable connectivity; 
(2) low impact locations (including a breakdown by substations, 
generations resources, and control centers) that contain low impact BES 
Cyber Systems without external routable connectivity; and (3) low 
impact locations that contain low impact BES Cyber Systems

[[Page 8367]]

with external routable connectivity (including a breakdown by 
substations, generations resources, and control centers). NERC should 
then discuss the risks to the security of the Bulk-Power System due to 
the lack of an INSM requirement for the identified facilities.
    90. Second, regarding challenges and solutions, NERC should 
identify the potential technological, logistical, or other challenges 
involved in extending INSM to additional BES Cyber Systems, as well as 
possible alternative actions to mitigate the risk posed. For example, 
as discussed in more detail above, challenges raised by commenters 
include: (1) lengthy timelines for identifying the location of low 
impact BES Cyber Systems; (2) the need to add external routable 
connectivity at many medium impact BES Cyber Systems to effectively 
implement INSM; (3) a wider footprint for monitoring and detecting for 
larger entities; (4) shortages of qualified staff; and (5) supply chain 
constraints.
    91. NERC should consult with Commission staff to ensure that the 
study adequately addresses the topics discussed above. We direct NERC 
to submit the study report to the Commission within 12 months of the 
issuance of this final action.

V. Information Collection Statement

    92. The information collection requirements contained in this order 
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's 
regulations require approval of certain information collection 
requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of 
information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. 
Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rulemaking will 
not be penalized for failing to respond to this collection of 
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB 
control number. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for the 
information proposed to be reported, whether the information will have 
practical utility, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated 
information techniques.
    93. The reporting requirements (and associated burden) proposed by 
the NOPR in Docket No. RM22-3-000 are already covered by the OMB-
approved FERC-725. However, we are seeking clearance for this 
collection of information under FERC-725(1B), which is a temporary 
placeholder number. FERC-725(1B) is being used because FERC-725 (OMB 
Control Number 1902-0225) is pending review at OMB for another 
collection of information, and only one item per OMB control number can 
be pending review at a time. Otherwise, the collection of information 
for this final action would be submitted to OMB under FERC-725, as 
discussed in the NOPR, since the reporting requirements and associated 
burdens in this final action are already covered by FERC-725.
    94. This final action requires that entities that are in the NERC 
Compliance Registry have an obligation to respond to the Commission 
directed NERC study, and thus there is a burden to be included in FERC-
725(1B) information collection requirements.
    95. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of October 3, 2022, identifies 
approximately 1,682 utilities, both public and non-public, in the U.S. 
that may respond to the NERC study. For the following reasons, we are 
using placeholders of one respondent, one response, and one burden hour 
for FERC-725(1B) in order to submit this request to OMB for PRA review.
    (1) We anticipate that the collection of information in this final 
action will become part of FERC-725 when that collection becomes 
available for revision.
    (2) FERC-725 already includes burdens associated with the ERO's 
responsibility for Reliability Standards Development
    (3) In order to submit the collection of information in this final 
action, we must submit it through the ROCIS system, which requires 
figures for respondents, responses, and burdens.
    96. To approximate NERC's cost for the temporary, placeholder FERC-
725(1B), we are using the estimated average of $91/hour (for wages and 
benefits) for 2022 for a Commission employee. Therefore, the estimated 
annual cost of the one placeholder burden hour is $91.

VI. Environmental Analysis

    97. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\173\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this 
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, 
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the 
effect of the regulations being amended.\174\ The actions directed 
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Env't. Pol'cy Act, Order 
No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 
1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \174\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    98. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \175\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final action that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. By only proposing to direct NERC, the Commission-certified ERO, 
to develop modified Reliability Standards for INSM at BES Cyber 
Systems, this final action will not have a significant or substantial 
impact on entities other than NERC.\176\ Therefore, the Commission 
certifies that this final action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See, e.g., Cyber Sec. Incident Reporting Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 848, 83 FR 36727 (July 31, 2018), 164 FERC ] 
61,033, at P 103 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. Any Reliability Standards proposed by NERC in compliance with 
this rulemaking will be considered by the Commission in future 
proceedings. As part of any future proceedings, the Commission will 
make determinations pertaining to the Regulatory Flexibility Act based 
on the content of the Reliability Standards proposed by NERC.

VIII. Document Availability

    101. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in 
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov).
    102. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    103. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's 
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
[email protected], or the

[[Page 8368]]

Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the 
Public Reference Room at [email protected].

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    104. This final action is effective April 10, 2023. The Commission 
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: January 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix A--Commenters

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Abbreviation                          Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPA..........................  Bonneville Power Administration.
CDWR.........................  California Department of Water Resources
                                State Water Project.
Consumers....................  Consumers Energy Company.
Conway.......................  Tim Conway.
Cynalytica...................  Cynalytica, Inc.
Electricity Canada...........  Electricity Canada.
Entergy......................  Entergy.
EPSA.........................  Electric Power Supply Association.
Idaho Power..................  Idaho Power Company.
Indicated Trade Associations.  Edison Electric Institute, the American
                                Public Power Association, the Large
                                Public Power Council, the National Rural
                                Electric Cooperative Association, and
                                the Electric Power Supply Association.
ISO/RTO Council..............  ISO/RTO Council.
ITC..........................  International Transmission Company.
Juniper Networks.............  Juniper Networks.
Microsoft....................  Microsoft Corporation.
MRO NSRF.....................  Midwest Reliability Organization NERC
                                Standards Review Forum.
NAGF.........................  North American Generator Forum.
NERC.........................  North American Electric Reliability
                                Corporation, Midwest Reliability
                                Organization, Northeast Power
                                Coordinating Council, Inc.,
                                ReliabilityFirst Corporation, SERC
                                Reliability Corporation, Texas
                                Reliability Entity, Inc., and Western
                                Electricity Coordinating Council.
Nozomi Networks..............  Nozomi Networks.
OT Coalition.................  Operational Technology Cybersecurity
                                Coalition.
Reclamation..................  United States Bureau of Reclamation.
TAPS.........................  Transmission Access Policy Study Group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-01453 Filed 2-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


