by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : June 30, 2014
Commentary | PATRICK D. HOWARD If you were offered free tires for your car or a tune-up, which would you take? The answer, of course, would depend on the car s needs. If your current tires are perfectly adequate, then the tune-up for your mis ring engine would be the smarter choice. That question simpli es the com- plex choices federal agencies face with the "free" assistance offered by the Department of Homeland Secu- rity for its Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. Certainly, credit goes to DHS for bringing continuous monitoring from concept to reality and relieving budget-squeezed agencies of much of the cost burden for the transition. But how will agencies use those "free" resources from DHS? Will they choose products that ll miss- ing gaps in their CDM migration, or could they unknowingly duplicate what they already own and end up with tires they didn t really need? Here s one example of what could happen as agencies prepare for continuous monitoring: Federal agencies own approximately 3.6 mil- lion licenses for Microsoft System Center, a product widely deployed throughout government, most com- monly to administer updates and con guration changes for "Patch Tuesday." Yet when DHS asked agencies to inventory their current technologies for continuous moni- toring, they might not have realized the product does far more than manage patches. In fact, System Center 2012 directly supports continuous moni- toring and performs three of the four Phase I functions of the CDM program: hardware asset manage- ment, software asset management and con guration management. That is a notable point considering that the tool already reaches the majority of government network and endpoint devices, including Linux, iOS and other non-Microsoft platforms. By taking advantage of a product they already own and their employees are already familiar with, agencies could implement continu- ous monitoring more quickly than they would by introducing new products into the IT environment, which might add to unnecessary tool sprawl or, worse, duplicate what they already have. It is not surprising that those capabilities could be overlooked as agencies plan their migration strategies. Considering the separa- tion of duties in government --- with security on one side and day-to-day operations on another --- it can be a challenge to deploy existing tech- nologies in a new context. However, it is good news for bud- get-constrained agencies that they might have already invested in capa- bilities for continuous monitoring. That point wasn t lost on the mem- bers of the Senate Appropriations Commmittee s Financial Services and General Government Subcom- mittee, which queried top federal IT leaders in May on preventing waste- ful spending and duplication and improving IT effectiveness. "At a time of tight budgets, we cannot afford to waste funds," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who led the hearing. "We should not be pay- ing more and getting less. Agencies need IT investments that are ef - cient and effective, that help them complete their missions." Therefore, it bears emphasizing that agencies should re-evaluate their CDM strategies before choos- ing DHS resources. They should thoroughly assess current technolo- gies through this new lens, especial- ly where there has been a tradition of compartmentalization. Agencies need to document their CDM migration plans --- and not just to satisfy the inspector general. By using an agencywide approach to take advantage of tools they already own and understanding any shortcomings, agencies will have a trusted road map as they move forward. They can then apply DHS resources as they were intended --- to ll gaps where they are most needed and valuable. ■ Continuous monitoring: Closer than you think Many agencies are using a patch management tool that can be a powerful ally in the quest for continuous monitoring Introducing new products might add to unnecessary tool sprawl or, worse, duplicate what agencies already have. PATRICK D. HOWARD served as chief information security of cer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is now program manager for CDM at Kratos SecureInfo. June 30, 2014 FCW.COM 11
May 30, 2014
June 15, 2014