TSA NOPR for Pipelines, Rail & Bussing – Enhancing Surface Cyber Risk Management
Andrew Ginter
The #1 most widely-read author in the industrial security space | VP Industrial Security | Podcast Host | Author| MS, CISSP, ISP, ITCP
By Andrew Ginter, VP Industrial Security, Waterfall Security Solutions
The TSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Enhancing Surface Cyber Risk Management is out. This is the long-awaited regulation that replaces the temporary security directives issued after the Colonial Pipeline incident. Those directives had to be re-issued annually. The new regulation will be permanent – at least until it’s changed or revoked.
So I’m trying to read through the proposed rule, and the document is daunting – 105 pages of technical language intermixed with very legal language, riddled with cross-references, only some of which I understand. That said, at a high level, the new rule, if passed as-is looks to apply to some:
Though the bussing rules seem focused on incident reporting rather than full-blown cybersecurity programs.
Some of the most confusing legal language seems focused on rationalizing how the TSA issues security directives, since before this it seems there were different procedures for security directives applicable to different forms of transportation. Another bunch of confusing language seems to be rationalizing physical security requirements and separating them from cybersecurity requirements. And then it gets a little bit more readable:
领英推荐
The freight rail, passenger rail & pipeline sections have a lot of familiar language. I haven't gone through them line by line comparing them to the previous security directives – eg: TSA SD 2021-02E the current directive that applies to pipelines – but just reading through the requirements rings a lot of bells in terms of language I've read before.
At a high level, in-scope owners and operators will need to:
At a higher level, as you've probably guessed by now, I'm struggling to understand the legalese. I would welcome a call from someone who can explain how to make sense of the complicated cross-references. I promise to take detailed notes on the process and publish them as an article so other interested people can figure out how to do the same - with copious thanks to my generous instructor.
BTW – one of the reasons I'm trying to understand this new rule is because I'm hoping to include insights into the rule in a webinar that's coming up: Evolving Global OT Cyber Guidelines, Recent Developments and What is Driving Them.
If you're interested in seeing what's common, what's different, and what's changing in this space, please do join us on Wednesday Nov 27.
And if you are interested in more of my writing, Waterfall Security Solutions continues to give a way free copies of my book Engineering-Grade OT Security: A manager's guide
talk to me about cybersecurity, binary vuln. analysis, AI trust analysis, 5G security, and more ;)
3 个月I wonder what "enterprise-wide evaluations" exactly entail? Did anyone already look at what they exactly ask for? Thanks
CxO Advisor | Digital Resilience Practitioner | Cyber Defense Expert | Zero Trust Ambassador | Standards Evangelist
3 个月Andrew Ginter, Thank you for the post. I am working on this too. Would be nice to compare notes after the annual holidays.
Chief OT / ICS Strategist Opinions expressed are my own.
3 个月Andrew, I can help you with the Legal-Eze. Willing to set some time next week to discuss.
OT Cybersecurity Thought Leader | Protecting Critical Infrastructure | University Lecturer
3 个月This breakdown was useful, thanks Andrew. The alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is particularly interesting.