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

SC-24 — Fail in Known State

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
3Parameters
1Baseline memberships
3Assessment methods

SC — System and Communications Protection · NIST SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0

High
Official NIST control content

Control statement

Fail to a [Organization-defined: known system state] for the following failures on the indicated components while preserving [Organization-defined: system state information] in failure: [Organization-defined: types of system failures on system components].

Official NIST discussion

Discussion

Failure in a known state addresses security concerns in accordance with the mission and business needs of organizations. Failure in a known state prevents the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information in the event of failures of organizational systems or system components. Failure in a known safe state helps to prevent systems from failing to a state that may cause injury to individuals or destruction to property. Preserving system state information facilitates system restart and return to the operational mode with less disruption of mission and business processes.

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.

types of system failures on system componentstypes of system failures for which the system components fail to a known state are defined;
known system stateknown system state to which system components fail in the event of a system failure is defined;
system state informationsystem state information to be preserved in the event of a system failure is defined;
Original Bare Metal Cyber perspective

From control text to operational evidence

Use Fail in Known State 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 secure architecture, boundary protection, communications protection, cryptography, and system isolation.

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

  • network and trust-boundary diagrams
  • firewall and gateway configurations
  • cryptographic configuration and key records
  • segmentation and isolation test results

Common failure patterns

  • diagrams omit cloud and third-party paths
  • encryption enabled without key governance
  • flat trust zones allow unnecessary lateral movement
  • boundary rules accumulate without owner review

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

[Organization-defined: types of system failures on system components] fail to a [Organization-defined: known system state] while preserving [Organization-defined: system state information] in failure.

Examine

  • System and communications protection policy
  • procedures addressing system failure to known state
  • system design documentation
  • system configuration settings and associated documentation
  • list of failures requiring system to fail in a known state
  • state information to be preserved in system failure
  • system audit records
  • system security plan
  • other relevant documents or records

Interview

  • System/network administrators
  • organizational personnel with information security responsibilities
  • system developer

Test

  • Mechanisms supporting and/or implementing the fail in known state capability
  • mechanisms preserving system state information in the event of a system failure
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