Critical Infrastructure Protection: Challenges in Securing	 
Control Systems (01-OCT-03, GAO-04-140T).			 
                                                                 
Computerized control systems perform vital functions across many 
of our nation's critical infrastructures. For example, in natural
gas distribution, they can monitor and control the pressure and  
flow of gas through pipelines; in the electric power industry,	 
they can monitor and control the current and voltage of 	 
electricity through relays and circuit breakers; and in water	 
treatment facilities, they can monitor and adjust water levels,  
pressure, and chemicals used for purification. In October 1997,  
the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection 
emphasized the increasing vulnerability of control systems to	 
cyber attacks. The House Committee on Government Reform,	 
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations, and the Census asked GAO to testify on potential cyber
vulnerabilities. GAO's testimony focused on (1) significant	 
cybersecurity risks associated with control systems; (2)	 
potential and reported cyber attacks against these systems; (3)  
key challenges to securing control systems; and (4) steps that	 
can be taken to strengthen the security of control systems,	 
including current federal and private-sector initiatives.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-140T					        
    ACCNO:   A08650						        
  TITLE:     Critical Infrastructure Protection: Challenges in	      
Securing Control Systems					 
     DATE:   10/01/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Computer networks					 
	     Computer security					 
	     Computer viruses					 
	     Hackers						 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems analysis					 
	     Systems evaluation 				 
	     Systems management 				 
	     Computer crimes					 
	     Crime prevention					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-140T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations, and the Census, House Committee on Government
Reform

For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday, October 1,
2003

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

                     Challenges in Securing Control Systems

Statement of Robert F. Dacey, Director, Information Security Issues

GAO-04-140T

Highlights of GAO-04-140T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and the
Census, House Committee on Government Reform

Computerized control systems perform vital functions across many of our
nation's critical infrastructures. For example, in natural gas
distribution, they can monitor and control the pressure and flow of gas
through pipelines; in the electric power industry, they can monitor and
control the current and voltage of electricity through relays and circuit
breakers; and in water treatment facilities, they can monitor and adjust
water levels, pressure, and chemicals used for purification.

In October 1997, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection emphasized the increasing vulnerability of control systems to
cyber attacks. The House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and the
Census asked GAO to testify on potential cyber vulnerabilities.

GAO's testimony focused on (1) significant cybersecurity risks associated
with control systems; (2) potential and reported cyber attacks against
these systems; (3) key challenges to securing control systems; and (4)
steps that can be taken to strengthen the security of control systems,
including current federal and private-sector initiatives.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-140T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robert F. Dacey at (202)
512-3317 or [email protected].

October 1, 2003

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Challenges in Securing Control Systems

In addition to general cyber threats, which have been steadily increasing,
several factors have contributed to the escalation of the risks of cyber
attacks against control systems. These include the adoption of
standardized technologies with known vulnerabilities, the increased
connectivity of control systems to other systems, constraints on the use
of existing security technologies for control systems, and the wealth of
information about them that is publicly available. Common control system
components are illustrated in the graphic below.

Control systems can be vulnerable to a variety of attacks, examples of
which have already occurred. Successful attacks on control systems could
have devastating consequences, such as endangering public health and
safety; damaging the environment; or causing a loss of production,
generation, or distribution of public utilities.

Securing control systems poses significant challenges, including technical
limitations, perceived lack of economic justification, and conflicting
organizational priorities. However, several steps can be taken now and in
the future to promote better security in control systems, such as
implementing effective security management programs and researching and
developing new technologies. The government and private industry have
initiated several efforts intended to improve the security of control
systems.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing
on the security of control systems. Control systems-which include
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and distributed
control systems-perform vital functions across many of our nation's
critical infrastructures, including electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution; oil and gas refining and pipelines; water
treatment and distribution; chemical production and processing; railroads
and mass transit; and manufacturing. In October 1997, the President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection highlighted cyber attacks
as specific points of vulnerability, stating that "the widespread and
increasing use of SCADA systems for control of energy systems provides
increasing ability to cause serious damage and disruption by cyber means."

In my testimony today I will discuss the (1) significant cybersecurity
risks associated with control systems; (2) potential and reported cyber
attacks against these systems; (3) key challenges to securing control
systems; and (4) steps that can be taken to strengthen the security of
control systems, including current federal and private-sector initiatives.

In preparing for this testimony, we conducted a literature search and
analyzed research studies and reports about the vulnerabilities of control
systems. We met with private-sector and federal officials with expertise
in control systems and their security. Finally, we relied on prior GAO
reports and testimonies on critical infrastructure protection, information
security, and national preparedness, among others. Our work was performed
from July to September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

For several years, security risks have been reported in control systems,
upon which many of the nation's critical infrastructures rely to monitor
and control sensitive processes and physical functions. In addition to
general cyber threats, which have been steadily increasing, several
factors have contributed to the escalation of risks specific to control
systems, including the (1) adoption of standardized technologies with
known vulnerabilities, (2) connectivity of control systems to other
networks, (3) constraints on the use of existing security technologies and
practices, (4) insecure remote connections, and (5) widespread
availability of technical information about control systems.

  Results in Brief

Control systems can be vulnerable to a variety of attacks. These attacks
could have devastating consequences, such as endangering public health and
safety; damaging the environment; or causing a loss of production,
generation, or distribution of public utilities. Control systems have
already been subject to a number of cyber attacks, including attacks on a
sewage treatment system in Australia in 2000 and, more recently, on a
nuclear power plant in Ohio.

Several challenges must be addressed in order to effectively secure
control systems. These include: the limitations of current security
technologies in securing control systems, the perception that securing
control systems may not be economically justifiable, and conflicting
priorities within organizations regarding the security of control systems.

Several steps can be considered when addressing potential threats to
control systems, including (1) researching and developing new security
technologies to protect control systems; (2) developing security policies,
guidance, and standards for control systems; (3) increasing security
awareness and sharing information about implementing more secure
architectures and existing security technologies, for example, by
segmenting process control networks with robust firewalls and strong
authentication; (4) implementing effective security management programs
that include consideration of control system security; and (5) developing
and testing continuity plans within organizations and industries, to
ensure safe and continued operation in the event of an interruption, such
as a power outage or cyber attack on control systems. Government and
private industry have initiated several efforts intended to improve the
security of control systems. These initiatives include efforts to promote
research and development activities, form information sharing and analysis
centers, and develop new standards. In addition, we have made several
recommendations for improving the federal government's critical
infrastructure protection efforts, which include control systems.

                                   Background

Cyberspace Introduces Dramatic increases in computer interconnectivity,
especially in the use of

Risks for Control Systems 	the Internet, continue to revolutionize the way
our government, our nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct
business. The benefits have been enormous. Vast amounts of information are
now literally at our fingertips, facilitating research on virtually every
topic imaginable; financial and other business transactions can be
executed almost instantaneously, often 24 hours a day; and electronic
mail, Internet

Web sites, and computer bulletin boards allow us to communicate quickly
and easily with a virtually unlimited number of individuals and groups.

However, this widespread interconnectivity poses significant risks to the
government's and our nation's computer systems and, more important, to the
critical operations and infrastructures they support. For example,
telecommunications, power distribution, water supply, public health
services, national defense (including the military's warfighting
capability), law enforcement, government services, and emergency services
all depend on the security of their computer operations. The speed and
accessibility that create the enormous benefits of the computer age, if
not properly controlled, may allow individuals and organizations to
inexpensively eavesdrop on or interfere with these operations from remote
locations for mischievous or malicious purposes, including fraud or
sabotage. Table 1 summarizes the key threats to our nation's
infrastructures, as observed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

        Table 1: Threats to Critical Infrastructure Observed by the FBI

Threat Description

Criminal groups There is an increased use of cyber intrusions by criminal
groups who attack systems for purposes of monetary gain.

Foreign intelligence services 	Foreign intelligence services use cyber
tools as part of their information gathering and espionage activities.

Hackers 	Hackers sometimes crack into networks for the thrill of the
challenge or for bragging rights in the hacker community. While remote
cracking once required a fair amount of skill or computer knowledge,
hackers can now download attack scripts and protocols from the Internet
and launch them against victim sites. Thus, while attack tools have become
more sophisticated, they have also become easier to use.

Hacktivists 	Hacktivism refers to politically motivated attacks on
publicly accessible Web pages or e-mail servers. These groups and
individuals overload e-mail servers and hack into Web sites to send a
political message.

Information warfare 	Several nations are aggressively working to develop
information warfare doctrine, programs, and capabilities. Such
capabilities enable a single entity to have a significant and serious
impact by disrupting the supply, communications, and economic
infrastructures that support military power-impacts that, according to the
Director of Central Intelligence,a can affect the daily lives of Americans
across the country.

Insider threat 	The disgruntled organization insider is a principal source
of computer crimes. Insiders may not need a great deal of knowledge about
computer intrusions because their knowledge of a victim system often
allows them to gain unrestricted access to cause damage to the system or
to steal system data. The insider threat also includes outsourcing
vendors.

Virus writers 	Virus writers are posing an increasingly serious threat.
Several destructive computer viruses and "worms" have harmed files and
hard drives, including the Melissa Macro Virus, the Explore.Zip worm, the
CIH (Chernobyl) Virus, Nimda, and Code Red.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation unless otherwise indicated

aPrepared Statement of George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence,
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, February 2, 2000.

Government officials remain concerned about attacks from individuals and
groups with malicious intent, such as crime, terrorism, foreign
intelligence gathering, and acts of war. According to the FBI, terrorists,
transnational criminals, and intelligence services are quickly becoming
aware of and using information exploitation tools such as computer

viruses, Trojan horses, worms, logic bombs, and eavesdropping sniffers
that can destroy, intercept, degrade the integrity of, or deny access to
data.1 In addition, the disgruntled organization insider is a significant
threat, since these individuals often have knowledge that allows them to
gain unrestricted access and inflict damage or steal assets without
possessing a great deal of knowledge about computer intrusions. As greater
amounts of money and more sensitive economic and commercial information
are exchanged electronically, and as the nation's defense and intelligence
communities increasingly rely on standardized information technology (IT),
the likelihood increases that information attacks will threaten vital
national interests.

As the number of individuals with computer skills has increased, more
intrusion or "hacking" tools have become readily available and relatively
easy to use. A hacker can literally download tools from the Internet and
"point and click" to start an attack. Experts agree that there has been a
steady advance in the sophistication and effectiveness of attack
technology. Intruders quickly develop attacks to exploit vulnerabilities
discovered in products, use these attacks to compromise computers, and
share them with other attackers. In addition, they can combine these
attacks with other forms of technology to develop programs that
automatically scan the network for vulnerable systems, attack them,
compromise them, and use them to spread the attack even further.

Between 1995 and the first half of 2003, the CERT Coordination
Center2 (CERT/CC) reported 11,155 security vulnerabilities that resulted
from software flaws. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic growth in security

1Virus: a program that "infects" computer files, usually executable
programs, by inserting a copy of itself into the file. These copies are
usually executed when the "infected" file is loaded into memory, allowing
the virus to infect other files. Unlike the computer worm, a virus
requires human involvement (usually unwitting) to propagate. Trojan horse:
a computer program that conceals harmful code. A Trojan horse usually
masquerades as a useful program that a user would wish to execute. Worm:
an independent computer program that reproduces by copying itself from one
system to another across a network. Unlike computer viruses, worms do not
require human involvement to propagate. Logic bomb: in programming, a form
of sabotage in which a programmer inserts code that causes the program to
perform a destructive action when some triggering event occurs, such as
termination of the programmer's employment. Sniffer: synonymous with
packet sniffer. A program that intercepts routed data and examines each
packet in search of specified information, such as passwords transmitted
in clear text.

2The CERT/CC is a center of Internet security expertise at the Software
Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center
operated by Carnegie-Mellon University.

vulnerabilities over these years. The growing number of known
vulnerabilities increases the number of potential attacks created by the
hacker community. Attacks can be launched against specific targets or
widely distributed through viruses and worms.

Figure 1: Security Vulnerabilities, 1995-first half of 2003

Along with these increasing threats, the number of computer security
incidents reported to the CERT/CC has also risen dramatically-from 9,859
in 1999 to 82,094 in 2002 and 76,404 for just the first half of 2003. And
these are only the reported attacks. The Director of CERT Centers stated
that he estimates that as much as 80 percent of actual security incidents
goes unreported, in most cases because (1) the organization was unable to
recognize that its systems had been penetrated or there were no
indications of penetration or attack or (2) the organization was reluctant
to report. Figure 2 shows the number of incidents that were reported to
the CERT/CC from 1995 through the first half of 2003.

Figure 2: Information Security Incidents, 1995-first half of 2003

According to the National Security Agency, foreign governments already
have or are developing computer attack capabilities, and potential
adversaries are developing a body of knowledge about U.S. systems and
about methods to attack these systems. The National Infrastructure
Protection Center (NIPC) reported in January 2002 that a computer
belonging to an individual with indirect links to Osama bin Laden
contained computer programs that suggested that the individual was
interested in structural engineering as it related to dams and other
water-retaining structures. The NIPC report also stated that U.S. law
enforcement and intelligence agencies had received indications that Al
Qaeda members had sought information about control systems from multiple
Web sites, specifically on water supply and wastewater management
practices in the United States and abroad.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, warnings of the
potential for terrorist cyber attacks against our critical infrastructures
have also increased. For example, in his February 2002 statement for the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the director of central
intelligence discussed the possibility of cyber warfare attack by
terrorists.3 He stated that the September 11 attacks demonstrated the
nation's dependence on

3Testimony of George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, before
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Feb. 6, 2002.

critical infrastructure systems that rely on electronic and computer
networks. Further, he noted that attacks of this nature would become an
increasingly viable option for terrorists as they and other foreign
adversaries become more familiar with these targets and the technologies
required to attack them.

                           What are control systems?

Control systems are computer-based systems that are used by many
infrastructures and industries to monitor and control sensitive processes
and physical functions. Typically, control systems collect sensor
measurements and operational data from the field, process and display this
information, and relay control commands to local or remote equipment. In
the electric power industry they can manage and control the transmission
and delivery of electric power, for example, by opening and closing
circuit breakers and setting thresholds for preventive shutdowns.
Employing integrated control systems, the oil and gas industry can control
the refining operations on a plant site as well as remotely monitor the
pressure and flow of gas pipelines and control the flow and pathways of
gas transmission. In water utilities, they can remotely monitor well
levels and control the wells' pumps; monitor flows, tank levels, or
pressure in storage tanks; monitor water quality characteristics, such as
pH, turbidity, and chlorine residual; and control the addition of
chemicals. Control system functions vary from simple to complex; they can
be used to simply monitor processes-for example, the environmental
conditions in a small office building-or manage most activities in a
municipal water system or even a nuclear power plant.

In certain industries such as chemical and power generation, safety
systems are typically implemented to mitigate a disastrous event if
control and other systems fail. In addition, to guard against both
physical attack and system failure, organizations may establish back-up
control centers that include uninterruptible power supplies and backup
generators.

There are two primary types of control systems. Distributed Control
Systems (DCS) typically are used within a single processing or generating
plant or over a small geographic area. Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems typically are used for large, geographically
dispersed distribution operations. A utility company may use a DCS to
generate power and a SCADA system to distribute it.

Figure 3 illustrates the typical components of a control system.

Figure 3: Typical Components of a Control System

A control system typically consists of a "master" or central supervisory
control and monitoring station consisting of one or more human-machine
interfaces where an operator can view status information about the remote
sites and issue commands directly to the system. Typically, this station
is located at a main site along with application servers and an

engineering workstation that is used to configure and troubleshoot the
other control system components. The supervisory control and monitoring
station is typically connected to local controller stations through a
hard-wired network or to remote controller stations through a
communications network-which could be the Internet, a public switched
telephone network, or a cable or wireless (e.g. radio, microwave, or
Wi-Fi4) network.

Each controller station has a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU), a Programmable
Logic Controller (PLC), DCS controller, or other controller that
communicates with the supervisory control and monitoring station. The
controller stations also include sensors and control equipment that
connect directly with the working components of the infrastructure-for
example, pipelines, water towers, and power lines. The sensor takes
readings from the infrastructure equipment-such as water or pressure
levels, electrical voltage or current-and sends a message to the
controller. The controller may be programmed to determine a course of
action and send a message to the control equipment instructing it what to
do-for example, to turn off a valve or dispense a chemical. If the
controller is not programmed to determine a course of action, the
controller communicates with the supervisory control and monitoring
station before sending a command back to the control equipment. The
control system also can be programmed to issue alarms back to the operator
when certain conditions are detected. Handheld devices, such as personal
digital assistants, can be used to locally monitor controller stations.
Experts report that technologies in controller stations are becoming more
intelligent and automated and communicate with the supervisory central
monitoring and control station less frequently, requiring less human
intervention.

Historically, security concerns about control systems were related
primarily to protecting against physical attack and misuse of refining and
processing sites or distribution and holding facilities. However, more
recently, there has been a growing recognition that control systems are
now vulnerable to cyber attacks from numerous sources, including hostile
governments, terrorist groups, disgruntled employees, and other malicious
intruders.

4Wi-Fi (short for "wireless" fidelity) is the popular term for a
high-frequency wireless local area network.

  Control Systems Are at Increasing Risk

In October 1997, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection specifically discussed the potential damaging effects on the
electric power and oil and gas industries of successful attacks on control
systems.5 Moreover, in 2002, the National Research Council identified "the
potential for attack on control systems" as requiring "urgent attention."6
In February 2003, the President clearly demonstrated concern about "the
threat of organized cyber attacks capable of causing debilitating
disruption to our Nation's critical infrastructures, economy, or national
security," noting that "disruption of these systems can have significant
consequences for public health and safety" and emphasizing that the
protection of control systems has become "a national priority."7

Several factors have contributed to the escalation of risk to control
systems, including (1) the adoption of standardized technologies with
known vulnerabilities, (2) the connectivity of control systems to other
networks, (3) constraints on the implementation of existing security
technologies and practices, (4) insecure remote connections, and (5) the
widespread availability of technical information about control systems.

Control Systems Are Adopting Standardized Technologies with Known
Vulnerabilities

Historically, proprietary hardware, software, and network protocols made
it difficult to understand how control systems operated-and therefore how
to hack into them. Today, however, to reduce costs and improve
performance, organizations have been transitioning from proprietary
systems to less expensive, standardized technologies such as Microsoft's
Windows and Unix-like operating systems and the common networking
protocols used by the Internet. These widely used standardized
technologies have commonly known vulnerabilities, and sophisticated and
effective exploitation tools are widely available and relatively easy to
use. As a consequence, both the number of people with the knowledge to
wage attacks and the number of systems subject to attack have increased.
Also, common communication protocols and the emerging use of Extensible
Markup Language (commonly referred to as XML) can make it easier for a

5President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical
Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures (Washington, D.C.:
October 1997).

6The National Research Council, Making the Nation Safer: the Role of
Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism (Washington, D.C.: December
2002).

7The White House, The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace (Washington,
D.C.: February 2003).

hacker to interpret the content of communications among the components of
a control system.

Control Systems Are Connected to Other Networks

Enterprises often integrate their control systems with their enterprise
networks. This increased connectivity has significant advantages,
including providing decision makers with access to real-time information
and allowing engineers to monitor and control the process control system
from different points on the enterprise network. In addition, the
enterprise networks are often connected to the networks of strategic
partners and to the Internet. Furthermore, control systems are
increasingly using wide area networks and the Internet to transmit data to
their remote or local stations and individual devices. This convergence of
control networks with public and enterprise networks potentially exposes
the control systems to additional security vulnerabilities. Unless
appropriate security controls are deployed in the enterprise network and
the control system network, breaches in enterprise security can affect the
operation of control systems.

Use of Existing Security Technologies and Practices Is Constrained

According to industry experts, the use of existing security technologies,
as well as strong user authentication and patch management practices, are
generally not implemented in control systems because control systems
operate in real time, typically are not designed with cybersecurity in
mind, and usually have limited processing capabilities.

Existing security technologies such as authorization, authentication,
encryption, intrusion detection, and filtering of network traffic and
communications require more bandwidth, processing power, and memory than
control system components typically have. Because controller stations are
generally designed to do specific tasks, they use low-cost,
resource-constrained microprocessors. In fact, some devices in the
electrical industry still use the Intel 8088 processor, introduced in
1978. Consequently, it is difficult to install existing security
technologies without seriously degrading the performance of the control
system.

Further, complex passwords and other strong password practices are not
always used to prevent unauthorized access to control systems, in part
because this could hinder a rapid response to safety procedures during an
emergency. As a result, according to experts, weak passwords that are easy
to guess, shared, and infrequently changed are reportedly common in
control systems, including the use of default passwords or even no
password at all.

In addition, although modern control systems are based on standard
operating systems, they are typically customized to support control system
applications. Consequently, vendor-provided software patches are generally
either incompatible or cannot be implemented without compromising service
by shutting down "always-on" systems or affecting interdependent
operations.

Insecure Connections Exacerbate Vulnerabilities

Potential vulnerabilities in control systems are exacerbated by insecure
connections. Organizations often leave access links-such as dial-up modems
to equipment and control information-open for remote diagnostics,
maintenance, and examination of system status. Such links may not be
protected with authentication or encryption, which increases the risk that
hackers could use these insecure connections to break into remotely
controlled systems. Also, control systems often use wireless
communications systems, which are especially vulnerable to attack, or
leased lines that pass through commercial telecommunications facilities.
Without encryption to protect data as it flows through these insecure
connections or authentication mechanisms to limit access, there is limited
protection for the integrity of the information being transmitted.

Information about Infrastructures and Control Systems Is Publicly
Available

Public information about infrastructures and control systems is available
to potential hackers and intruders. The availability of this
infrastructure and vulnerability data was demonstrated earlier this year
by a George Mason University graduate student, whose dissertation
reportedly mapped every business and industrial sector in the American
economy to the fiber-optic network that connects them-using material that
was available publicly on the Internet, none of which was classified. Many
of the electric utility officials who were interviewed for the National
Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee's Information Assurance
Task Force's Electric Power Risk Assessment expressed concern over the
amount of information about their infrastructure that is readily available
to the public.

In the electric power industry, open sources of information-such as
product data and educational videotapes from engineering associations- can
be used to understand the basics of the electrical grid. Other publicly
available information-including filings of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), industry publications, maps, and material available on
the Internet-is sufficient to allow someone to identify the most heavily
loaded transmission lines and the most critical substations in the power
grid.

  Cyber Threats to
  Control Systems

In addition, significant information on control systems is publicly
available-including design and maintenance documents, technical standards
for the interconnection of control systems and RTUs, and standards for
communication among control devices-all of which could assist hackers in
understanding the systems and how to attack them. Moreover, there are
numerous former employees, vendors, support contractors, and other end
users of the same equipment worldwide with inside knowledge of the
operation of control systems.

There is a general consensus-and increasing concern-among government
officials and experts on control systems about potential cyber threats to
the control systems that govern our critical infrastructures. As
components of control systems increasingly make critical decisions that
were once made by humans, the potential effect of a cyber threat becomes
more devastating. Such cyber threats could come from numerous sources,
ranging from hostile governments and terrorist groups to disgruntled
employees and other malicious intruders. Based on interviews and
discussions with representatives throughout the electric power industry,
the Information Assurance Task Force of the National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee concluded that an organization with
sufficient resources, such as a foreign intelligence service or a
well-supported terrorist group, could conduct a structured attack on the
electric power grid electronically, with a high degree of anonymity and
without having to set foot in the target nation.

In July 2002, NIPC reported that the potential for compound cyber and
physical attacks, referred to as "swarming attacks," is an emerging threat
to the U.S. critical infrastructure. As NIPC reports, the effects of a
swarming attack include slowing or complicating the response to a physical
attack. For instance, a cyber attack that disabled the water supply or the
electrical system in conjunction with a physical attack could deny
emergency services the necessary resources to manage the consequences-such
as controlling fires, coordinating actions, and generating light.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cyber
attacks on energy production and distribution systems-including electric,
oil, gas, and water treatment, as well as on chemical plants containing
potentially hazardous substances-could endanger public health and safety,
damage the environment, and have serious financial implications, such as
loss of production, generation, or distribution of public utilities;
compromise of proprietary information; or liability issues. When backups

for damaged components are not readily available (e.g., extra-high-voltage
transformers for the electric power grid), such damage could have a
long-lasting effect.

Although experts in control systems report that they have substantiated
reports of numerous incidents affecting control systems, there is no
formalized process to collect and analyze information about control
systems incidents. CERT/CC and KEMA, Inc. have proposed establishing a
center that will proactively interact with industry to collect information
about potential cyber incidents, analyze them, assess their potential
impact, and make the results available to industry. I will now discuss
potential and reported cyber attacks on control systems.

Control Systems Can Be Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks

Entities or individuals with malicious intent might take one or more of
the following actions to successfully attack control systems:

o  	disrupt the operation of control systems by delaying or blocking the
flow of information through control networks, thereby denying availability
of the networks to control system operators;

o  	make unauthorized changes to programmed instructions in PLCs, RTUs, or
DCS controllers, change alarm thresholds, or issue unauthorized commands
to control equipment, which could potentially result in damage to
equipment (if tolerances are exceeded), premature shutdown of processes
(such as prematurely shutting down transmission lines), or even disabling
of control equipment;

o  	send false information to control system operators either to disguise
unauthorized changes or to initiate inappropriate actions by system
operators;

o  	modify the control system software, producing unpredictable results;
and

o  interfere with the operation of safety systems.

In addition, in control systems that cover a wide geographic area, the
remote sites are often unstaffed and may not be physically monitored. If
such remote systems are physically breached, the attackers could establish
a cyber connection to the control network.

Department of Energy and industry researchers have speculated on how the
following potential attack scenario could affect control systems in the
electricity sector. Using war dialers8 to find modem phone lines that
connect to the programmable circuit breakers of the electric power control
system, hackers could crack passwords that control access to the circuit
breakers and could change the control settings to cause local power
outages and even damage equipment. A hacker could lower settings from, for
example, 500 amperes9 to 200 on some circuit breakers; normal power usage
would activate, or "trip," the circuit breakers, taking those lines out of
service and diverting power to neighboring lines. If, at the same time,
the hacker raised the settings on these neighboring lines to 900 amperes,
circuit breakers would fail to trip at these high settings and the
diverted power would overload the lines and cause significant damage to
transformers and other critical equipment. The damaged equipment would
require major repairs that could result in lengthy outages.

Additionally, control system researchers at the Department of Energy's
national laboratories have developed systems that demonstrate the
feasibility of a cyber attack on a control system at an electric power
substation, where high-voltage electricity is transformed for local use.
Using tools that are readily available on the Internet, they are able to
modify output data from field sensors and take control of the PLC directly
in order to change settings and create new output. These techniques could
enable a hacker to cause an outage, thus incapacitating the substation.

The consequences of these threats could be lessened by the successful
operation of any safety systems, which I discussed earlier in my
testimony.

Cyber Attacks to Control There have been a number of reported exploits of
control systems, Systems Have Been including the following:

Reported

o  	In 1998, during the two-week military exercise known as Eligible
Receiver, staff from the National Security Agency used widely available
tools to simulate how sections of the U.S. electric power grid's control
network could be disabled through cyber attack.

8War dialers are simple PC programs that dial consecutive phone numbers
looking for modems.

9An ampere is a unit of measurement for electric current.

o  	In the spring of 2000, a former employee of an Australian company that
develops manufacturing software applied for a job with the local
government, but was rejected. The disgruntled former employee reportedly
used a radio transmitter on numerous occasions to remotely hack into the
controls of a sewage treatment system and ultimately release about 264,000
gallons of raw sewage into nearby rivers and parks.

o  	In August 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed that in
January 2003, the Microsoft SQL Server worm-otherwise known as
Slammer-infected a private computer network at the Davis-Besse nuclear
power plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio, disabling a safety monitoring system for
nearly 5 hours. In addition, the plant's process computer failed, and it
took about 6 hours for it to become available again. Slammer reportedly
also affected communications on the control networks of other electricity
sector organizations by propagating so quickly that control system traffic
was blocked.

Media reports have also indicated that the Blaster worm, which broke out
three days before the August blackout, might have exacerbated the problems
that contributed to the cascading effect of the blackout by blocking
communications on computers that are used to monitor the power grid.
FirstEnergy Corp., the Ohio utility that is the chief focus of the
blackout investigation, is reportedly exploring whether Blaster might have
caused the computer trouble that was described on telephone transcripts as
hampering its response to multiple line failures.

Several challenges must be addressed to effectively secure control systems
against cyber threats. These challenges include: (1) the limitations of
current security technologies in securing control systems; (2) the
perception that securing control systems may not be economically
justifiable; and (3) the conflicting priorities within organizations
regarding the security of control systems.

  Securing Control Systems Poses Significant Challenges

Current Cybersecurity A significant challenge in effectively securing
control systems is the lack Technologies Have of specialized security
technologies for these systems. As I previously Limitations in Securing
mentioned, the computing resources in control systems that are needed to

perform security functions tend to be quite limited, making it very
difficultControl Systems to use security technologies within control
system networks without severely hindering performance.

Although technologies such as robust firewalls and strong authentication
can be employed to better segment control systems from enterprise
networks, research and development could help address the application of
security technologies to the control systems themselves. Information
security organizations have noted that a gap exists between current
security technologies and the need for additional research and development
to secure control systems.

Research and development in a wide range of areas could lead to more
effective technologies to secure control systems. Areas that have been
noted for possible research and development include identifying the types
of security technologies needed for different control system applications,
determining acceptable performance trade-offs, and recognizing attack
patterns for intrusion-detection systems.

Securing Control Systems May Not Be Perceived as Economically Justifiable

Experts and industry representatives have indicated that organizations may
be reluctant to spend more money to secure control systems. Hardening the
security of control systems would require industries to expend more
resources, including acquiring more personnel, providing training for
personnel, and potentially prematurely replacing current systems that
typically have a lifespan of about 20 years.

Several vendors suggested that since there has been no confirmed serious
cyber attack on U.S. control systems, industry representatives believe the
threat of such an attack is low. Until industry users of control systems
have a business case to justify why additional security is needed, there
may be little market incentive for vendors to fund research to develop
more secure control systems.

Organizational Priorities Conflict

Finally, several experts and industry representatives indicated that the
responsibility for securing control systems typically includes two
separate groups: IT security personnel and control system engineers and
operators. IT security personnel tend to focus on securing enterprise
systems, while control system engineers and operators tend to be more
concerned with the reliable performance of their control systems. Further,
they indicate that, as a result, those two groups do not always fully
understand each other's requirements and collaborate to implement secure
control systems.

These conflicting priorities may perpetuate a lack of awareness of IT
security strategies that could be deployed to mitigate the vulnerabilities
of control systems without affecting their performance. Although research

and development will be necessary to develop technologies to secure
individual control system devices, IT security technologies are currently
available that could be implemented as part of a secure enterprise
architecture to protect the perimeter of, and access to, control system
networks. These technologies include firewalls, intrusion-detection
systems, encryption, authentication, and authorization.

Officials from one company indicated that, to reduce its control system
vulnerabilities, it formed a team composed of IT staff, process control
engineers, and manufacturing employees. This team worked collaboratively
to research vulnerabilities and test fixes and workarounds.

  Steps Can Be Taken to Strengthen Control System Security

Several steps can be considered when addressing potential threats to
control systems, including:

o  	Researching and developing new security technologies to protect
control systems.

o  	Developing security policies, guidance, and standards for control
system security. For example, the use of consensus standards could be
considered to encourage industry to invest in stronger security for
control systems.

o  	Increasing security awareness and sharing information about
implementing more secure architectures and existing security technologies.
For example, a more secure architecture might be attained by segmenting
control networks with robust firewalls and strong authentication. Also,
organizations may benefit from educating management about the
cybersecurity risks related to control systems and sharing successful
practices related to working across organizational boundaries.

o  	Implementing effective security management programs that include
consideration of control system security. We have previously reported on
the security management practices of leading organizations.10 Such
programs typically consider risk assessment, development of appropriate
policies and procedures, employee awareness, and regular security
monitoring.

10U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security Management:
Learning from Leading Organizations, GAO/AIMD-98-68 (Washington, D.C.: May
1998).

o  	Developing and testing continuity plans within organizations and
industries, to ensure safe and continued operation in the event of an
interruption, such as a power outage or cyber attack on control systems.
Elements of continuity planning typically include (1) assessing the
criticality of operations and identifying supporting resources, (2) taking
steps to prevent and minimize potential damage and interruption, (3)
developing and documenting a comprehensive continuity plan, and (4)
periodically testing the continuity plan and making appropriate
adjustments.11 Such plans are particularly

important for control systems, where personnel may have lost

familiarity with how to operate systems and processes without the use

of control systems.

In addition, earlier this year we reviewed the federal government's
critical infrastructure protection efforts related to selected industry
sectors, including electricity and oil and gas.12 We recommended that the
federal government assess the need for grants, tax incentives, regulation,
or other public policy tools to encourage increased critical
infrastructure protection activities by the private sector and greater
sharing of intelligence and incident information among these industry
sectors and the federal government. In addition, we have made other
recommendations related to critical infrastructure protection, including:
developing a comprehensive and coordinated plan for national critical
infrastructure protection; improving information sharing on threats and
vulnerabilities between the private sector and the federal government, as
well as within the government itself; and improving analysis and warning
capabilities for both cyber and physical threats.13 Although improvements
have been made, further efforts are needed to address these challenges in
implementing critical infrastructure protection.

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Information System Controls
Audit Manual, GAO/AIMD-12.19.6 (Washington, D.C.: January 1999).

12U.S. General Accounting Office, Critical Infrastructure Protection:
Challenges for Selected Agencies and Industry Sectors, GAO-03-233
(Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003) and U.S. General Accounting Office,
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Efforts of the Financial Services
Sector to Address Cyber Threats, GAO-03-173 (Washington, D.C.: January 30,
2003).

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Information Sharing
Responsibilities, Challenges, and Key Management Issues, GAO-03-1165T
(Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2003).

Government and private industry have taken a broad look at the
cybersecurity requirements of control systems and have initiated several
efforts to address the technical, economic, and cultural challenges that
must be addressed. These cybersecurity initiatives include efforts to
promote research and development activities; develop process control
security policies, guidance, and standards; and encourage security
awareness and information sharing. For example, several of the Department
of Energy's national laboratories have established or plan to establish
test beds for control systems, the government and private sector are
collaborating on efforts to develop industry standards, and Information
Sharing and Analysis Centers such as the Chemical Sector Cybersecurity
Program (for the chemical sector) and the North American Electric
Reliability Council (for the electricity sector) have been developed to
coordinate communication between industries and the federal government.
Attachment I describes selected current and planned initiatives in greater
detail.

In summary, it is clear that the systems that monitor and control the
sensitive processes and physical functions of the nation's infrastructures
are at increasing risk to threats of cyber attacks. Securing these systems
poses significant challenges. Both government and industry can help to
address these challenges by lending support to ongoing initiatives as well
as taking additional steps to overcome barriers that hinder better
security.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at
this time. Should you have any further questions about this testimony,
please contact me at (202) 512-3317 or at [email protected].

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Shannin
Addison, Joanne Fiorino, Alison Jacobs, Elizabeth Johnston, Steven Law,
David Noone, and Tracy Pierson.

Appendix I: Selected Initiatives to Improve Control System Security

Initiatives to Research Research and development of new technologies is
being performed to

provide additional security options to protect control systems. Several
and Develop Security federally funded entities have ongoing efforts to
research, develop, and Technologies for test new technologies.

Control Systems

                               Entity Initiative

Sandia National Laboratories	At Sandia's SCADA Security Development
Laboratory, industry can test and improve the security of its SCADA
architectures, systems, and components.

Sandia also has initiatives under way to advance technologies that
strengthen control systems through the use of intrusion detection,
encryption/authentication, secure protocols, system and component
vulnerability analysis, secure architecture design and analysis, and
intelligent self-healing infrastructure technology.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratories, National Energy Technology Laboratory, and other entities
Plans are under way to establish the National SCADA Test Bed, which is
expected to become a full-scale infrastructure testing facility that will
allow for large-scale testing of SCADA systems before actual exposure to
production networks and for testing of new standards and protocols before
rolling them out.

                       Los Alamos National Laboratory and

Sandia National Laboratories

Los Alamos and Sandia have established a critical infrastructure modeling,
simulation, and analysis center known as the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center. The center provides modeling and
simulation capabilities for the analysis of critical infrastructures,
including the electricity, oil, and gas sectors.

National Science Foundation 	The National Science Foundation is
considering pursuing cybersecurity research and development options
related to the security of control systems.

Initiatives to Develop Process Control Security Policies, Guidance, and
Standards

Several efforts to develop policies, guidance, and standards to assist in
securing control systems are in progress. There are coordinated efforts
between government and industry to identify threats, assess infrastructure
vulnerabilities, and develop guidelines and standards for mitigating risks
through protective measures. Actions that have been taken so far or are
under way include the following.

Entity Initiative

The President's Critical Infrastructure In February 2003, the board
released the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. The

Protection Board 	document provides a general strategic picture, specific
recommendations and policies, and the rationale for these initiatives. The
strategy ranks control network security as a national priority and
designates the Department of Homeland Security to be responsible for
developing best practices and new technologies to increase control system
security.

                    Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation

Society The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society is composed
of users, vendors, government, and academic participants representing the
electric utilities, water, chemical, petrochemical, oil and gas, food and
beverage, and pharmaceutical industries. It has been working on a proposed
standard since October 2002. The new standard addresses the security of
manufacturing and control systems. It is to provide users with the tools
necessary to integrate a comprehensive security process. Two technical
reports are planned for release in October 2003. One report,
ISA-TR99.00.01, Security Technologies for Manufacturing and Control
Systems, will describe electronic security technologies and discuss
specific types of applications within each category, the vulnerabilities
addressed by each type, suggestions for deployment, and known strengths
and weaknesses. The other report, ISA-TR99.00.02, Integrating Electronic
Security into the Manufacturing and Control Systems Environment, will
provide a framework for developing an electronic security program for
manufacturing and control systems, as well as a recommended organization
and structure for the security plan. Gas Technology Institute and
Technical Sponsored by the federal government's Technical Support Working
Group, the Gas

Support Working Group 	Technology Institute has researched a number of
potential encryption methods to prevent hackers from accessing natural gas
company control systems. This research has led to the development of an
industry standard for encryption. The standard would incorporate
encryption algorithms to be added to both new and existing control systems
to control a wide variety of operations. This standard is outlined in the
American Gas Association's report, numbered 12-1.

National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Security
Agency The National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National
Security Agency have organized the Process Controls Security Requirements
Forum to establish security specifications that can be used in
procurement, development, and retrofit of industrial control systems. They
have also developed a set of security standards and certification
processes.

North American Energy Reliability Council	The North American Energy
Reliability Council has established a cybersecurity standard for the
electricity industry. The council requires members of the electricity
industry to self-certify that they are meeting the cyber-security
standards. However, as currently written, the standard does not apply to
control systems.

Electric Power Research Institute 	The Electric Power Research Institute
has developed the Utility Communications Architecture, a set of
standardized guidelines that provides interconnectivity and
interoperability for utility data communication systems for real-time
information exchange.

Initiatives to Many efforts are under way to spread awareness about cyber
threats and

control system vulnerabilities and to take proactive measures to Encourage
Security strengthen the security of control systems. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Awareness and Share Commission, the Department of Homeland
Security and other federal

agencies and organizations are involved in these efforts.

Information

                               Entity Initiative

Department of Homeland Security 	The Department of Homeland Security
created a National Cyber Security Division to identify, analyze, and
reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities, disseminate threat warning
information, coordinate incident response, and provide technical
assistance in continuity of operations and recovery planning. The Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office within the Department coordinates the
federal government's initiatives on critical infrastructure assurance and
promotes national outreach and awareness campaigns about critical
infrastructure protection.

Sandia National Laboratories, the Sandia National Laboratories has
collaborated with the Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency, and and industry groups to develop a risk
assessment methodology for assessing the

industry groups 	vulnerability of water systems in major U.S. cities.
Sandia has also conducted vulnerability assessments of control systems
within the electric power, oil and gas, transportation, and manufacturing
industries. Sandia is involved with various activities to address the
security of our critical infrastructures, including developing best
practices, providing security training, demonstrating threat scenarios,
and furthering standards efforts.

North American Energy Reliability Council	Designated by the Department of
Energy as the electricity sector's Information Sharing and Analysis Center
coordinator for critical infrastructure protection, the North American
Energy Reliability Council facilitates communication between the
electricity sector, the federal government, and other critical
infrastructure sectors. The council has formed the Critical Infrastructure
Protection Advisory Group, which guides cybersecurity activities and
conducts security workshops to raise awareness of cyber and physical
security in the electricity sector. The council also formed a Process
Controls subcommittee within the Critical Infrastructure Protection
Advisory Group to specifically address control systems.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission	The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission regulates interstate commerce in oil, natural gas, and
electricity. The commission has published a rule to promote the capturing
of critical energy infrastructure information, which may lead to increased
information sharing between industry and the federal government.

Process Control Systems Cyber Security The Process Control Systems Cyber
Security Forum is a joint effort between Kema

Forum 	Consulting and LogOn Consulting, Inc. The forum studies the
cybersecurity issues surrounding the effective operation of control
systems and focuses on issues, challenges, threats, vulnerabilities, best
practices/lessons learned, solutions, and related topical areas for
control systems. It currently holds workshops on control system
cybersecurity.

Chemical Sector Cybersecurity Program 	The Chemical Sector Cybersecurity
Program is a forum of 13 trade associations and serves as the Information
Sharing and Analysis Center for the chemical sector. The Chemical Industry
Data Exchange is part of the Chemical Sector Cybersecurity Program and is
working to establish a common security vulnerability assessment
methodology and to align the chemical industry with the ongoing
initiatives at the Instrumentation Systems and Automation Society, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the American Chemistry
Council.

Entity Initiative

The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and Department of
Energy The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and the
Department of Energy developed 21 Steps to Improve the Cyber Security of
SCADA Networks. These steps provide guidance for improving implementation
and establishing underlying management processes and policies to help
organizations improve the security of their control networks.

                        Joint Program Office for Special

                           Technology Countermeasures

The Joint Program Office has performed vulnerability assessments on
control systems, including the areas of awareness, integration, physical
testing, analytic testing, and analysis.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***