Security requirement
Employ the following advanced automation and analytics capabilities to predict and identify risks to [Organization-defined: advanced automation capabilities]: [Organization-defined: systems or system components].
Discussion
A properly resourced security operations center (SOC) or computer incident response team (CIRT) may be overwhelmed by the volume of information generated by the proliferation of security tools and appliances unless it employs advanced automation and analytics to analyze the data. Advanced automation and predictive analytics capabilities are typically supported by artificial intelligence concepts and machine learning. Examples include automated threat discovery and response (which includes broad-based collection, context-based analysis, and adaptive response capabilities), automated workflow operations, and machine-assisted decision tools. However, sophisticated adversaries may be able to extract information related to analytic parameters and retrain the machine learning to classify malicious activity as benign. Accordingly, machine learning is augmented by human monitoring to help ensure that sophisticated adversaries are not able to conceal their activities. This requirement enhances SP 800-171 requirement 03.11.01.
Tailoring decisions required
Resolve these values through the governing organization’s approved tailoring and risk-management process before declaring the requirement implemented.
Protection strategies supported
These classifications are carried from the official SP 800-172 OSCAL record and help explain the enhanced requirement’s defensive purpose.
Implementation perspective
Treat Predictive Cyber Analytics as an enhanced CUI protection outcome for elevated threat conditions that must be reflected in the system boundary, documented implementation, operational behavior, and assessment evidence. Pay particular attention to threat, vulnerability, likelihood, impact, criticality, and risk-response decisions for the CUI environment.
- Confirm the federal agency selected this enhanced requirement for the critical program or high-value asset and identify the CUI system components, services, users, and external connections in scope.
- Resolve every organization-defined parameter through an approved governance and tailoring process.
- Map each clause of the requirement to an accountable owner, implementation mechanism, and evidence source.
- Verify that inherited and shared implementations are supported by current provider evidence and responsibility boundaries.
- Collect evidence during normal operation and review changes, exceptions, and deficiencies on a risk-based cadence.
Questions to ask
- Which critical-program or high-value-asset CUI, data flows, users, and services are protected by this enhanced requirement?
- Which portions are implemented locally, inherited, shared, or not applicable, and what evidence supports that determination?
- Do the system security plan, deployed configuration, operating process, and assessment evidence tell the same story?
- What change, incident, or threshold should trigger reassessment?
Evidence and validation
- risk assessments and threat models
- vulnerability findings and prioritization records
- supply-chain risk assessments
- risk response and acceptance decisions
Common failure patterns
- risk registers detached from technical evidence
- vulnerability severity treated as business impact
- assessments not updated after material change
- accepted risks without owners or expiration
Assessment objectives and methods
Assessment objectives (2)
[Organization-defined: advanced automation capabilities] are employed to predict and identify risks to [Organization-defined: systems or system components].
[Organization-defined: advanced analytics capabilities] are employed to predict and identify risks to [Organization-defined: systems or system components].
Examine
- Risk assessment policy
- security planning policy and procedures
- procedures addressing organizational assessments of risk
- risk assessment
- risk assessment results
- risk assessment reviews
- risk assessment updates
- risk reports
- system security plan
- other relevant documents or records
Interview
- Personnel with risk assessment responsibilities
- personnel with information security responsibilities
Test
- Processes for risk assessment
- mechanisms supporting and/or conducting, documenting, reviewing, disseminating, and updating the risk assessment
Source NIST SP 800-53 controls
These controls are referenced by the official SP 800-172 Rev. 3 OSCAL record. Open the corresponding control pages for complete control text, enhancements, D3FEND mappings, and related learning.
Authoritative sources
- NIST SP 800-172 Revision 3 official publication ↗
- NIST SP 800-172A Revision 3 official publication ↗
- NIST OSCAL Content release used for this import ↗
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by NIST. The official publications, the responsible federal agency, and the governing contract or agreement determine applicability, tailoring, assessment depth, and required implementation.