Final chamber comments framework v1 1 april 10 2017


April 10, 2017


April 10, 2017


Edwin Games
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Subject: Proposed Update to the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure

Dear Mr. Games:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation
representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and
regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations, welcomes the
opportunity to respond to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s
(NIST’s) request for comments on the proposed update to the Framework for Improving
Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.1

The Chamber generally supports the changes that NIST suggests in its January
framework draft version 1.1. The major amendments that are contained in NIST’s
update pertain to (1) metrics and measures—which are distinct concepts, but we
combine them into metrics to simplify this letter—and (2) supply chain risk
management (SCRM). The Chamber largely focuses its comments on these two areas.
We also provide thoughts on establishing metrics on malicious actors.


The Chamber appreciates the work that NIST has done to update the
framework. We want businesses to vigorously test the value of metrics in operating
environments, which is a comparatively new field of research, and manage supply
chain risk. However, the Chamber does not want businesses to fear that the
framework could become a means of serving the prerogatives of regulators over the
needs of the business community. Unauthorized third parties, whether public or
private, should not have unfettered access to data that businesses generate when
using the framework.

In addition, policymakers should not take advantage of the business
community’s support for the framework to forge prescriptive pathways to SCRM. Cyber
defenses need to rely on industry best practices and reflect the efficient, decentralized
architecture of companies’ supply chains.


Version 1.1 seeks to clarify, refine, and enhance the framework. But the
Chamber has heard from several members that the proposed changes—particularly
with regard to metrics—are unclear and raise questions of interpretation. These
members, who have considerable cybersecurity policy experience, were unsure about
(1) the meaning of the prospective metrics text, (2) how the metrics could help
businesses, and (3) what entities could lay claim to organizations’ metrics data.

This should not come as a surprise. Metrics—which were contemplated as part
of the “data analytics” component (section 4.5) in the 2014 Roadmap—and SCRM were
not included in the framework because they provoked a wide range of competing
reactions (e.g., technical, security, and policy) that could not be easily reconciled.2 In a
similar vein, metrics were sparingly considered in NIST’s December 2015 request for
information and its April 2016 workshop.3

Taken together, the framework should make clear that there are no one-size-
fits-all methods to employing metrics and administering SCRM activities, including
within sectors. NIST is not so much the intended audience here as are policymakers.

The Chamber believes that NIST’s two-day workshop in May offers stakeholders
a good opportunity to hear from one another about how organizations make sense of
proposed metrics and SCRM text. Still, a single workshop may not allow enough time
to get the language right. NIST may need to hold follow-up gatherings to work through
any significant remaining issues.

The Chamber’s goal, which NIST shares, is to make essential and practical
changes to the framework while keeping the new version compatible with the original,
especially on the subject of maintaining broad swaths of the business community’s
support. This should be achieved through a robust back-and-forth dialogue between
agency officials and industry leaders.


NIST proposes including a new section, Measuring and Demonstrating
Cybersecurity (section 4.0), in version 1.1.4 The Chamber urges companies to take
advantage of tools like the framework to help them mitigate risks and threats to their
security and resilience. Metrics can help organizations improve their cybersecurity
over time with increasing accuracy. Nevertheless, the framework is as much a product
of industry’s efforts as it is of NIST’s, and the Chamber is mindful of how it is used.

Some policymakers are calling for NIST to develop framework implementation
metrics to quantify the effectiveness and benefits of the framework that could easily
become rigid during the design and implementation phases. Such thinking is
misguided, the Chamber believes, because there are no standard templates or
universal solutions linked to cyber metrics.

Indeed, the Chamber recently pushed back on legislation that initially sought to
require public and private initiatives to develop outcome-based metrics, models, and
tools that quantify the effectiveness and benefits of the framework. We said that


metrics are being vigorously debated in cyber policy circles and should not be written
into law.

The Chamber supports businesses using data to understand the status of their
organizations’ information security programs. Yet the data are held closely by a
business and shared only protectively with trusted third parties.

The Chamber believes that industry actors should never be compelled formally
or informally to disclose metrics to third parties. Businesses may want to restrict
sensitive information to certain recipients. Analysts, investors, security researchers,
and regulators should not be given metrics unless the business agrees to publicly
disclose them. The Chamber thinks that business officials should identify before
engagements which entities will receive the results of cyber performance examinations
and how the data will be used.

The Chamber agrees with NIST that harvesting information from metrics can
improve the security of multiple business networks and information systems while
providing consistent, reasonably complete, and flexible data to a range of
stakeholders. The metrics section in version 1.1 could fit this mold without difficulty.
But, going forward, industry’s greatest challenge may be managing the relationship
between its generation and use of metrics and regulators’ likely strong desire to access
the metrics—which the Chamber will oppose without private organizations giving their


As recently as September 2016, the Chamber urged NIST to provide additional
guidance concerning SCRM, which version 1.1 does through the inclusion of new
explanatory language in section 3.3.5 The Chamber’s national Cybersecurity Campaign
urges businesses to use the framework when communicating with partners, vendors,
and suppliers about SCRM activities. Businesses of all sizes find it challenging to
identify their risks and prioritize their actions to reduce weak links vulnerable to
penetration, theft, and disruption.

The Chamber supports many efforts to enhance the security of public and
private information and communications technology (ICT) networks and systems. The
revised framework features SCRM considerations throughout the document. However,
the Chamber wants to put the SCRM language in context.

First, it is important to highlight that businesses are linked together through a
global web of interconnected, predictable, and efficient supply chains. U.S. businesses
rely on these supply chains—which feature physical and digital characteristics—to
access international consumers and compete in the global marketplace. The Chamber
urges NIST and policymakers to recognize the complexity of mitigating cyber supply
chain risk without compromising the interconnectivity that helps ensure the trade
flows, access to markets, and the competitiveness of U.S. businesses.6

Second, the Chamber urges policymakers to reject prescriptive and/or excessive
SCRM programs that inject the United States or foreign governments directly into
businesses’ innovation and technology development processes, which are international


in scope. Version 1.1 does not call for such regimes, which is positive, and this should
not change in future frameworks.

Ambitious public- and private-sector efforts are under way to manage cyber
supply chain risk. The Chamber opposes government actions that would create U.S.-
specific guidelines, set private sector security standards, or conflict with industry-led
security programs. Instead, cybersecurity stakeholders should seek to leverage
consensus-based international agreements that enable ICT manufacturers to build
products once and sell them globally. The revised framework is constructively
consistent with such a view.

Third, the Chamber has a fundamental concern about policies that could
broadly apply restrictions on international commerce based on real or perceived
threats to the cyber supply chain and ICT products’ country of origin. ICT
cybersecurity policy must be geared toward embracing globally recognized standards,
facilitating trade, and managing risk. NIST understands industry’s core apprehension
in this area, but we want to draw the attention of Congress and agencies to industry’s


The development and use of cyber metrics is a work in progress and is
controversial. The Chamber believes that the call for metrics should not be limited to
use of the framework, which is industry-centric. Policymakers should also create
metrics to assess how successfully the United States is imposing consequences on
malicious actors to deter cyberattacks.

It is valuable that the administration’s pending executive order on cybersecurity
is expected to feature language that calls on federal agencies with economic and
national security responsibilities to “jointly submit a report to the President on the
nation’s strategic options for deterring adversaries and protecting the American
people. . . .”7

The Chamber’s recommendation for measurements on bad actors is technically
outside the scope of NIST’s open review of version 1.1, but the two sides of this coin—
e.g., deterrence by denial (via businesses’ using the framework) and deterrence
through cost imposition (via the government penalizing illicit hackers)—should be
considered jointly in the policymaking process.8

Three examples are worth taking into account:

 First, metrics could be used to better pinpoint the geographic origins of
cyberattacks. While attribution is a challenge, it is far from impossible.9
Prominent cyber authorities agree that certain foreign powers or their
proxies represent high-end threats against the business community and the
United States.10 Among the goals worth pursing include reducing the
number of safe havens from which malicious actors can launch attacks
against American interests with impunity.


There is no disincentive to being a cybercriminal that attacks U.S. industry
from certain countries around the world. Recalcitrant governments too
frequently will not help the U.S. government round up bad actors and turn
them over to the FBI and/or the Secret Service.11

 Second, metrics could help stakeholders understand the relationship
between attacks that businesses report to the government and the number
of attacks that are investigated, attributed, and prosecuted. A low ratio
suggests that an inadequate amount of government resources are being
devoted to disrupting bad actors, which the Chamber has communicated to
the Cybersecurity Forum for Independent and Executive Branch Regulators,
among others.12

 Third, the United States has issued several high-profile indictments against
foreign hackers in recent years. For example, in March 2016, seven Iranians
allegedly working on behalf of the Iranian government were indicted for a
series of cybercrimes that cost U.S. financial institutions tens of millions of
dollars and compromised critical controls of a New York dam, according to
an FBI announcement.13

It is unclear if the indicted individuals will ever be brought to justice.
Metrics could demonstrate if deterrence—essentially dissuading bad actors
from hacking businesses because they believe that the costs to them will
exceed their expected benefit—is having the intended effect.14

Deterrence and norms need to be part of a new U.S. cybersecurity strategy
that policymakers discuss with the business community before, during, and
after the strategy is written.15


The Chamber applauds NIST’s insistence that the framework is a voluntary,
nonregulatory tool. We want to stress to policymakers that the inclusion of metrics
and SCRM in version 1.1 should not alter this fact. Businesses need flexible and
effective cyber solutions so that they can routinely adapt to the ever-changing tactics
that illicit actors throw against network defenders. Pro-framework stakeholders should
push back vigorously against regulatory authorities that could leverage—subtly or
overtly—metrics and SCRM considerations for their own unproductive purposes.

If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to
contact me (; 202-463-3100) or my colleague Matthew
Eggers (; 202-463-5619).


Ann M. Beauchesne Matthew J. Eggers
Senior Vice President Executive Director, Cybersecurity Policy




Final chamber comments framework v1 1 april 10 2017