Knowledge is Power

Sitewide Search

Search Bare Metal Cyber

Search courses, individual lessons, wiki entries, books, podcasts, magazine articles, Daily Cyber News, and Darwin.

NIST SP 800-53 Learning Center

PS-2 — Position Risk Designation

Read the official control and assessment content, then use the separately labeled Bare Metal Cyber perspective to connect the requirement to implementation, evidence, and sustained operation.

0Enhancements
1Parameters
3Baseline memberships
3Assessment methods

PS — Personnel Security · NIST SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0

LowModerateHigh
Official NIST control content

Control statement

  1. a.Assign a risk designation to all organizational positions;
  2. b.Establish screening criteria for individuals filling those positions; and
  3. c.Review and update position risk designations [Organization-defined: frequency].
Official NIST discussion

Discussion

Position risk designations reflect Office of Personnel Management (OPM) policy and guidance. Proper position designation is the foundation of an effective and consistent suitability and personnel security program. The Position Designation System (PDS) assesses the duties and responsibilities of a position to determine the degree of potential damage to the efficiency or integrity of the service due to misconduct of an incumbent of a position and establishes the risk level of that position. The PDS assessment also determines if the duties and responsibilities of the position present the potential for position incumbents to bring about a material adverse effect on national security and the degree of that potential effect, which establishes the sensitivity level of a position. The results of the assessment determine what level of investigation is conducted for a position. Risk designations can guide and inform the types of authorizations that individuals receive when accessing organizational information and information systems. Position screening criteria include explicit information security role appointment requirements. Parts 1400 and 731 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, establish the requirements for organizations to evaluate relevant covered positions for a position sensitivity and position risk designation commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of those positions.

Official OSCAL parameters

Organization-defined parameters

These values must be resolved through the organization’s tailoring and governance process. Bracketed parameter references in the control text identify where a decision is required.

frequencythe frequency at which to review and update position risk designations is defined;
Original Bare Metal Cyber perspective

From control text to operational evidence

Use Position Risk Designation as a testable risk decision. Translate the official statement into accountable people, repeatable processes, configured technology, and evidence that demonstrates the outcome over time. In this family, pay particular attention to personnel risk, screening, agreements, transfer, termination, and access consequences.

Implementation workflow

  • Define the control boundary, responsible owner, inherited portions, and systems or processes in scope.
  • Resolve each organization-defined parameter before declaring the control implemented.
  • Document how the implementation satisfies every clause of the official control statement.
  • Collect evidence as a normal byproduct of operation rather than only before an assessment.
  • Review exceptions, changes, and monitoring results on a risk-based cadence.

Evidence examples

  • screening and suitability records
  • access agreements
  • transfer and termination checklists
  • role change and offboarding evidence

Common failure patterns

  • access persists after transfer or separation
  • contractor lifecycle handled outside normal controls
  • sensitive-role screening not risk based
  • termination actions cannot be shown to occur promptly

Questions practitioners should ask

  • What risk decision is this control intended to support in this system?
  • Which parts are implemented locally, inherited, shared, or not applicable—and what evidence supports that decision?
  • Do the documented narrative, deployed configuration, operating process, and collected evidence agree?
  • What event or threshold requires the implementation to be reviewed or changed?
Official NIST SP 800-53A content

Assessment objectives and methods

Show the assessment objective
  1. PS-02a.a risk designation is assigned to all organizational positions;
  2. PS-02b.screening criteria are established for individuals filling organizational positions;
  3. PS-02c.position risk designations are reviewed and updated [Organization-defined: frequency].

Examine

  • Personnel security policy
  • procedures addressing position categorization
  • appropriate codes of federal regulations
  • list of risk designations for organizational positions
  • records of position risk designation reviews and updates
  • system security plan
  • other relevant documents or records

Interview

  • Organizational personnel with personnel security responsibilities
  • organizational personnel with information security responsibilities

Test

  • Organizational processes for assigning, reviewing, and updating position risk designations
  • organizational processes for establishing screening criteria
Official relationships

Related controls

These relationships come from the official OSCAL catalog. They indicate useful dependencies or context, not automatic inheritance or equivalence.

Source record

Authoritative sources