Bridging Strategies: How the CMU Framework and NIST CSF v2.0 Can Work Together to Enable Resilience

Introduction

In previous articles, we explored the CMU Framework and how it could be applied. In this article, we will explore the CMU Framework and its interoperability with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) v2.0. Modern organizations face an expanding range of cybersecurity challenges that demand structured and efficient solutions. To address these, frameworks like Carnegie Mellon University’s (CMU) Framework and NIST CSF v2.0 provide valuable methodologies.

The CMU Framework offers a targeted, iterative approach to problem-solving, while NIST CSF v2.0 provides comprehensive, risk-based guidance across organizational processes. We will examine their similarities and differences, with an emphasis on their complementary strengths and a practical example of their combined application.

Overview of the Frameworks

The CMU Framework The CMU Framework’s four phases—Define, Design, Execute, and Evaluate covered in depth here—promote a methodical approach to addressing cybersecurity problems. Originating from research at Carnegie Mellon University, the framework is known for its flexibility and focus on specific cybersecurity challenges. It is especially effective in domains like red teaming, Internet of Things (IoT) security, and incident response, where iterative problem-solving and refinement are critical. Its structure supports continuous learning and adaptation as threats evolve (Carnegie Mellon University 2017).

NIST Cybersecurity Framework v2.0 NIST CSF, developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, emphasizes an integrated approach to cybersecurity. Versions previous to v 2.0 held five core functions—Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover—providing a roadmap for managing cybersecurity risks. Version 2.0 updates the framework with the addition of Governance as a function, along with enhanced recognition of supply chain risk management. It is widely adopted across industries for its alignment with compliance requirements and scalability (NIST 2023).

Comparison of CMU Framework and NIST CSF v2.0

Similarities Both frameworks allow organizations to tailor their application to diverse needs. They emphasize iterative improvement, enabling continuous refinement of cybersecurity strategies. Collaboration is another key element, with both encouraging multi-stakeholder engagement to align goals and address risks comprehensively.

Differences

1. Scope: The CMU Framework excels in operational and tactical areas, particularly for specific projects like penetration testing or securing IoT systems. In contrast, NIST CSF provides a broader framework encompassing governance, regulatory alignment, and long-term risk management.
2. Complexity: CMU’s straightforward structure is designed for focused problem-solving, making it accessible for organizations tackling specific challenges. NIST CSF offers a more detailed approach, addressing the full lifecycle of cybersecurity processes and requiring broader organizational involvement.
3. Standardization: NIST CSF provides detailed guidelines to align with industry standards and regulations, while CMU focuses on adaptability and high-level strategies for targeted domains.

Contrasting Strengths

Strengths of the CMU Framework The CMU Framework’s flexibility allows it to be tailored to niche challenges, such as red team exercises. For example, its Define and Evaluate phases provide a structured way to set objectives and refine attack simulations, leading to actionable insights. This simplicity makes it particularly effective for organizations looking to address discrete challenges without extensive overhead (Meadows 78).

Strengths of NIST CSF v2.0 NIST CSF is designed for comprehensive risk management, making it indispensable for organizations managing complex ecosystems. Its inclusion of governance and supply chain risk management allows businesses to address vulnerabilities across their operations. The updated version also enhances support for integrating cybersecurity with business objectives, ensuring alignment with strategic goals (Davenport and Harris 104).

Scenario: Complementary Use of CMU Framework and NIST CSF v2.0

Consider an organization aiming to enhance its cybersecurity program.

1. Strategic Use of NIST CSF v2.0 The company starts with NIST CSF to establish a baseline. Using the Identify and Protect functions, it identifies and assesses critical assets and existing controls, ensuring comprehensive visibility into its security posture. The framework’s guidance on governance helps develop policies that integrate cybersecurity into decision-making processes.
2. Tactical Application of the CMU Framework The company applies the CMU Framework for operational challenges, such as testing incident response capabilities. The Define phase identifies scenarios, such as ransomware attacks, that the organization wants to simulate. During the Design phase, the team plans response strategies and selects tools for detection and containment. This approach complements NIST CSF’s Respond function by focusing on execution and post-event evaluation.
3. Integration and Continuous Improvement The integration of both frameworks ensures that strategic and operational layers of cybersecurity are aligned. Insights from the CMU Framework feed into NIST CSF’s Respond and Recover functions, enhancing the organization’s ability to adapt and strengthen its defenses.

Challenges and Considerations

Adopting both frameworks requires careful planning to avoid duplication or inefficiency. For example, overlapping areas such as monitoring and evaluation may lead to redundancies unless roles and objectives are clearly defined. Smaller organizations may face challenges due to resource constraints, as implementing two frameworks simultaneously can demand significant time and expertise. Stakeholder involvement and careful management are vital. Further, prioritizing incremental adoption and focusing on high-impact areas can mitigate these issues (Repko et al. 89).

Conclusion

The CMU Framework and NIST CSF v2.0 each provide valuable methodologies for managing cybersecurity risks, with complementary strengths that make them particularly effective when used together. NIST CSF offers a strategic foundation, while the CMU Framework excels in operational execution and iterative refinement. By leveraging the unique benefits of both frameworks, organizations can create a robust cybersecurity program that addresses both governance and tactical challenges. The ability to skillfully integrate diverse (and appropriate) frameworks and methodologies will be critical for maintaining and enhancing resilience.

Works Cited

• Carnegie Mellon University. The CERT? Division's Mission in Cybersecurity. Software Engineering Institute, 2017, https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/documents/4146/2017_017_001_508771.pdf.
• Davenport, Thomas H., and Jeanne G. Harris. Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning. Harvard Business Review Press, 2007.
• Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Cybersecurity Framework Version 2.0. NIST, 2023, https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework.
• Repko, Allen F., Rick Szostak, and Michelle P. Buchberger. Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. SAGE Publications, 2020.