In the wake of 9/11, the Federal Government’s secure-the-fort, big idea was to create an identity credential for all federal employees and contractors. Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12 set it all in motion. Today, we know the smartcard-based credential that arose from HSPD-12 as the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card.

The PIV card is meant to give employees/contractors physical access to federal facilities and logical access to federal information systems. While using a PIV card for logical access has been largely successful and compliant with HSPD-12, implementing PIV-based, physical access control systems (PACS) has been much more difficult to conquer. As a result, HSPD-12 compliance for PACS has largely eluded the Federal Government. The noncompliance reasons are many, but there is now hope for fully achieving HSPD-12’s mandates.

Interoperability with any agency’s PIV

Beyond Passports, PIV cards represent the only other open-standards-based, multi-vendor-supported, identity credential program on the planetAll Executive Branch employees and long-term contractors, including the entire Department of Defense, have been issued PIV cards. This has been true since 2013. Beyond Passports, PIV cards represent the only other open-standards-based, multi-vendor-supported, identity credential program on the planet.

It seems so simple, where employees/contractors previously used their proximity card to open a federal facility door or go through a turnstile, they should now be able to use their PIV card. However, HSPD-12 took the PIV requirement one step further – compliant PACS must be interoperable with any agency’s PIV. This introduced an entire magnitude of additional complexity.

A compliant, interoperable, PIV-based PACS should work like this: an authorised employee (or contractor) presents a PIV card (contact or contactless) to a card reader to enter whichever federal agency building they have reason to be. Over the last 14 years, in all but a very few cases, the lack of PACS’ HSPD-12 compliance has prevented this from happening.

Secure credential policy

Today, less than 1% of the Federal Government’s PACS are HSPD-12-compliant. At most federal facilities, especially those outside the National Capitol Region, a noncompliant PACS works like this: an authorised employee (or contractor) presents a proximity (‘prox’) badge to a proximity card reader to enter his or her agency’s facility. At the fraction of federal facilities with upgraded PACS that work with PIV cards, virtually all such PACS fail to properly use a minimum number of PIV security features before granting access – let alone interoperate with a PIV card from any other agency.

Active government solicitations are issued for new, non-compliant, proximity-based systems that perpetuate the delay to HSPD-12 complianceNew federal initiatives frequently suffer from having no policy to enforce their roll-out. That isn’t the case with PACS compliance. Policies have been in place for so long that newer policies like Office of Management and Budget (OMB) M-11-11 (February 3, 2011) remind everyone what the policies said in 2004 and 2006. This year, OMB publicised its proposed OMB M-18-XX (Draft), which will replace M-11-11. OMB M-18-XX’s (Draft) main PACS thrust is, once again, to ensure that everyone understands what the Federal Government’s secure credential policy is. It hasn’t changed since 2004.

It would be tempting to say that PACS technology isn’t mature, but that isn’t the case. In 2013, the Federal Government revamped the PACS portion of the FIPS 201 Evaluation Program and, since that time, all PACS on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Approved Products List are 100% compliant and interoperable. Yet, on any given day, active government solicitations are issued for new, non-compliant, proximity-based systems that perpetuate the delay to HSPD-12 compliance.

The usual suspects, policy and technology, are not the culprits for this epic delay.

An authorised employee presents a proximity badge to a proximity card reader to enter his or her agency’s facility
An authorised employee presents a PIV card to a card reader to enter whichever federal agency building they have reason to be

Difficulties in adopting HPSP-12 compliance for PACS

  • Standards – The Federal Government’s approach to standards is to avoid a great deal of specificity. It’s an unspoken tenet that federal standards must be flexible, promote innovation and avoid disadvantaging any participating market segment. The opposite is true if your goal is interoperability: nearly every detail must be specified. Consider the standards-based success story of chip-based credit cards. When was the last time you used a credit card and it didn’t work? Interoperability failures are nearly unheard of. If you look at the hundreds of volumes of technical specifications that cover minute aspects of every component in credit cards and payment terminals, you quickly realise why it works so well. Nothing is left to chance, nothing is a variable, and there is no optionality.

The Good News: Work to increase viability through deep scrutiny has progressed in recent years. The GSA APL PACS Testing Lab, set up in 2013, annually tests credentials from all PIV issuers against all GSA-approved PACS. This testing has significantly reduced interoperability failures at federal facilities.

  • Collaboration – In the past, physical access practitioners from federal agencies rarely collaborated, unlike their logical access counterparts. This is also true for PACS procurement decision-makers across agencies and facilities.

The Good News: In 2018, an agency trend has emerged where finally physical access, physical security and IT practitioners have begun sitting down to discuss their shared responsibilities. We have already begun to see coordinated budget requests between IT and Security with enterprise architectures positioning PACS as an enterprise service on the network.

  • Scale – The Federal Government owns so many buildings that they can’t be counted. Google doesn’t know how many there are and neither does any one government official.
  • Variability – A significant percentage of facilities have unique aspects making a one-size-fits-all approach infeasible.

The Good News: Mature consulting services can now help agencies marry federal requirements with their unique environments to develop robust PACS enterprise architectures. As we see this occurring more and more frequently, a repeatable, achievable, systems-based upgrade of all PACS may be on the horizon.

Active government solicitations are issued for new, non-compliant, proximity-based systems that perpetuate the delay to HSPD-12 compliance
The GSA APL PACS Testing Lab annually tests credentials from all PIV issuers against all GSA-approved PACS
  • Provenance – In many cases, different groups own different parts of a single facility, not all of whom might be subject to, or wish to interoperate with, a high-assurance compliant PACS. For example, GSA manages facilities for Legislative and Judicial tenants who aren’t subject to HSPD-12. Policy dictates that GSA manage the PACS for the front doors of these facilities should be HSPD-12-compliant, despite the fact that these tenants likely don’t have credentials that work with this technology. Sure, these tenants could commercially obtain a PIV-I credential, but almost none have.
  • Economics – It’s difficult for agencies to create their annual security budget requests when HPSD-12 PACS upgrades are in scope, because so many unknowns exist at each facility. To assess the cost, the time to complete, and the facility’s existing equipment inventory, it would be logical for an agency to hire a contractor with PACS expertise to perform a site assessment. Having to do capital planning for an assessment phase in advance of making the annual budget request for the PACS upgrade creates a never-ending cycle of delay. Especially at agencies with multi-year capital planning requirements. Many agencies, trying to avoid this delay cycle, have fallen prey to doing site assessments themselves. This results in their integrators doing their walk-throughs after the contract is awarded. This is the leading cause of PACS upgrade cost overruns.
  • Dependence on the agency’s IT department – Historically, PACS have been deployed on dedicated networks and are rarely ever connected to the enterprise, let alone the Internet. High-assurance PACS that validate credentials from other agencies must now communicate with many different systems on an enterprise network and over the Internet – so much so that the Federal Government reclassified PACS as IT systems.

The Good News: With collaboration increasing between Physical Security Officers (PSOs) and Chief Information Officer (CIOs), we expect this to improve in due course.

  • Resistance to change – This is a classic human factors challenge, and it’s a big one. PSOs have spent decades achieving their positions. PIV-based PACS could not be more different from the technologies that proceeded it, and such radical change is often resisted. When the value proposition is clear, change is adopted more readily. But security value isn’t easily measured or observed. It is often said that the best performance review for a PSO is to note that nothing happened. And when something does happen, it is necessarily kept quiet so the risk can be remediated without calling attention to the vulnerability in the interim. To date, the value proposition of moving to PIV-based PACS has been entirely based on policy (without corresponding funding in most cases) and through the shock value of white hat hackers, showing how easily most proximity badges can be cloned. This is not the stuff of change agents.

 

PACS have been deployed on dedicated networks and are rarely ever connected to the enterprise
PIV-based PACS could not be more different from the technologies that proceeded it, and such radical change is often resisted

Are these challenges a unique situation?

No, these PACS challenges are not unique. Cybersecurity initially faced many of the same challenges that federal PACS face today. By 2000, the Federal Government recognised its urgent need to improve cybersecurity practices across its computing infrastructure and issued many policies that required agencies to improve. Improvement was sparse and inconsistent. GSA Schedules were set up to help agencies buy approved products and services to assist them, but this too produced lacklustre results.

The Federal Government found that the best cybersecurity results occurred when enforced at the time an agency commissioned a system

Congress enacted the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) (now amended by the Federal Information Security Modernization Action of 2014). FISMA mandates an Authority To Operate (ATO) accreditation process for all information systems. The Federal Government found that the best cybersecurity results occurred when enforced at the time an agency commissioned (vs. purchased) a system.

FISMA and ATO accreditation has been highly successful when implementing new systems. These cybersecurity requirements are the closest thing that the Federal Government has to the ‘PIV Police’ today. However, the PIV requirements in FISMA and ATOs currently apply to only logical access for information systems.

The proposed OMB M-18-XX (Draft) mentions that a FISMA PACS overlay to NIST SP 800-53 is forthcoming. The intent of the PACS overlay is to use the army of ATO accrediting officials in the Federal Government and enable them to assess implemented PACS as fit for purpose. This is the first time an enforcement approach has been brought forward that could reasonably succeed.

How long for HSPD-12 compliance?

We know that it won’t take another 14 years to achieve HSPD-12 compliance. Pockets of compliance are popping up. Compliant procurements do exist, and the state of PACS across the Federal Government is better in 2018 than in any previous year. Progress to date has been at a constant rate. The question is: what would take for progress to occur at an exponential rate instead? A major attack or compromise involving PACS would certainly hasten upgrades, but let’s hope that’s not the solution.

The energy distribution sector has been riding a wave of security upgrade demands to retrofit their facilities across the U.S.

The energy distribution sector, under nearly constant Advanced Persistent Threat attacks, has been riding a wave of security upgrade demands to retrofit their facilities across the U.S. The potential threat exists for Federal Government facilities as well.

Looking into the federal PACS-compliance crystal ball, we’re beginning to see the faint outline of a multi-faceted campaign of education, budgetary oversight and accreditation of PACS that will ultimately see us past the tipping point. Consider though, at the current rate of PACS enablement, a 50% compliance rate is still far in the future.

When that day arrives, the PIV card form factor may no longer be the key that fits that future lock. (Are you already using a mobile device’s Bluetooth interface to open the door to your office building?) Taking decades to perform a technology upgrade is the aging elephant in the room no one talks about. By the time critical mass is achieved with an upgrade facing these many challenges, there are typically compelling reasons to start over again with the next generation of technology. That cycle may well prove to be the Federal Government’s biggest PACS challenge of all.

Download PDF version

Author profile

Jeff Nigriny President and Founder, CertiPath

In case you missed it

Artificial intelligence: why you should enable deep learning and video analytics
Artificial intelligence: why you should enable deep learning and video analytics

Constantly optimising deep learning algorithms yields better video analytics performance, even in complex applications such as facial recognition or in scenarios with variable lighting, angles, postures, expressions, accessories, resolution, etc. Deep learning, a form of artificial intelligence (AI), holds the potential to enable video analytics to deliver on long-promised, but not often delivered performance. Our AI series continues here with part 2. Adapting existing hardware Today, low-cost system-on-chip (SoC) camera components enable deep neural network (DNN) processing for the next generation of intelligent cameras, thus expanding the availability of AI processing to a broader market. AI software can even add learning capabilities by adapting existing hardware to AI applications AI software can even add learning capabilities by adapting existing hardware to AI applications. Today’s smartphones include cameras, gyroscopes and accelerometers to provide sufficient data to drive AI applications. Software can adapt existing hardware to transform them into AI devices capable of continuous learning in the field. Inside a video camera, real-time deep learning processing can be used to detect discarded objects, issue loitering alarms and detect people or objects entering a pre-defined field. Data capture form to appear here! Detect anomalous data Additional capabilities are applicable to demanding environments and mission-critical applications, such as the perimeter protection of airports, critical infrastructures and government buildings, border patrol, ship-tracking and traffic-monitoring (e.g. wrong-way detection, traffic-counts and monitoring roadsides for parked cars: all vital video security solutions). IoT is transforming the lowly security camera from a device that simply captures images, into an intelligent sensor that plays an integral role in gathering the kind of vital business data that can be used to improve commercial operations in areas beyond security. For example, cities are transitioning into smart cities. Deep learning enables systems to search surveillance footage, to detect anomalous data, and to shift surveillance from post-incident response to providing alerts during, or even before, an event. The ability of deep learning for video analytics is much more sophisticated and accurate Make critical decisions Deep learning can eliminate previous video analytics limitations such as dependence on a scene’s background. Deep learning is also more adept than humans at discerning subtle changes in an image. The ability of deep learning for video analytics is much more sophisticated – and accurate – than the programmed approaches previously employed to identify targets. AI is a timely solution in an age when there is more video surveillance than ever. There are too many cameras and too much recorded video for security operators to keep pace with. On top of that, people have short attention spans. AI is a technology that doesn’t get bored and can analyse more video data than humans. Systems are designed to bring the most important events and insight to users’ attention, freeing them to do what they do best: make critical decisions. Multiple camera streams AI can reduce information overload to enable humans to work with the data more efficiently The video benefits reflect the larger goal of AI to amplify human skills. AI can reduce information overload to enable humans to work with the data more efficiently. Another benefit is faster search, and new systems make searching video as easy as searching the internet. AI enables specific people or cameras to be located quickly across all the cameras at a site. Searching can be directed by a reference images or by physical descriptors such as gender or clothing colour. Consider a scenario of a child missing from a crowded shopping mall: Every second can seem like hours, and artificial intelligence and neural networks can enable a rapid search among multiple camera streams using only one photo of the child. The photo does not have to be a full-frontal passport-type photos; it could be a selfie from a party as long as the face is there. Intrusion detection scenario AI can find her and match her face from among hundreds of thousands of faces captured from video, in nearly real time. AI can also continuously analyse video streams from the surveillance cameras in its network, distinguishing human faces from non-human objects such as statues and animals. Privacy concerns are minimal as there is no ID or personal information on the photo, and the image can be erased after use. And there is no database of stored images.    In a perimeter security/intrusion detection scenario, an AI-driven video system can avoid false alarms by easily distinguishing different types of people and objects, e.g., in a region set up to detect people, a car driving by, a cat walking by, or a person’s shadow will not trigger the alarm. Part three coming soon. If you missed part one, see it here.

3 key security tips for public event planners
3 key security tips for public event planners

Public spaces in cities and suburbs are important places for community development and promoting outdoor recreation. These areas may include main streets, parks, promenades, band shells and fields. Such locations are often utilised by public event planners for community activities, including summer festivals, wintertime ice skating rink installations, music concerts and art fairs. As the year draws to a close, holiday and Christmas markets as well as major New Year’s Eve events, present cities with constant public event security needs. The public nature of these events increases risks of incidents with high-speed vehicles that put attendees in danger. Fortunately, there are three ways for public space managers to prevent casualty-causing collisions and further promote the use of local public areas. Developing an effective action plan    When strategising how to react to an alert, think about what time of the year and time of day the event is occurring It is important to have a plan developed before an incident or accident occurs. Warning systems, utilising doppler radar and digital loop technologies, alert guards to abnormal vehicle velocity changes in the surrounding area. Managers of public areas should organise a meeting with public safety authorities and local agencies to discuss what must immediately occur when a high-speed vehicle is approaching a public event. When strategising how to react to an alert, think about what time of the year and time of day the event is occurring. Having such a reaction plan in place combines technology and strategic planning to ensure everyone is on the same page to effectively target a threat and promote overall event safety. Securing public areas  Ideally, there will be no need to implement a well-conceived action plan. After all, taking preventive measures to secure public areas where events take place is important to keep people safe from accidental vehicle collisions and intentional attacks. Protect attendees by clearly separating pedestrian and vehicle locations using security devices such as – Barricades Portable barriers Bollards Install guard booths  Avoid the risk of vandalism and theft, making sure people are safe when walking back to the cars at night by keeping parking areas illuminated with flood lights. Install guard booths with employees who monitor activity in the parking area and who are prepared to react if an alert is triggered. Furthermore, prevent accidental collisions by clearly marking the parking area with informative warning signs and using barricades to direct traffic. These three tips can be used by public area managers to promote security at the next community event. Additionally, the technologies used to secure an event can also be used as infrastructure for year-round security. Installing gates that shut when the public space is closed or using aesthetically pleasing bollards are steps any public area manager can take to promote community safety.

Choosing your security entrance installation in line with your company culture
Choosing your security entrance installation in line with your company culture

The extensive analysis and discussion preceding any decision to implement a new physical security solution – whether it’s hardware, software or a combination of both – often focuses on technology, ROI and effectiveness. When it comes to deciding what type of security entrances to install at your facility, you will almost certainly also consider the aesthetics of the product, along with throughput and, if you’re smart, you’ll also look into service concerns. Each of these factors has its important place within the evaluation process, and none should be overlooked as they all have a significant effect on how well your entrances will perform once they are installed. Culture influences door solution decisions How significant will the change from current entrances to security entrances be for employees? Still, one additional factor actually trumps everything: if you have not considered your organisation’s culture in choosing a security entrance, you may be missing the most important piece of the puzzle. Culture is a part of every other decision factor when selecting an entry solution. Before you make a decision about what type of entrance to deploy, you need to consider and understand the values, environment and personality of your organisation and personnel. For example, how significant will the change from current entrances to security entrances be for employees? If people are accustomed to simply walking through a standard swinging door with no access control, this will be a culture change. Beyond this, whether you are considering a type of turnstile, a security revolving door or possibly a mantrap portal, simply walking through it will be a significant change as well. Training employees on door security You’ll want to know whether employees have ever used security entrances before. If these types of entrances are in place in another part of the facility, or in a facility they’ve worked in at an earlier time, the adjustment will not be as great as if they’ve never used them at all. Consider, too, how your personnel typically react to changes like this in the organisation or at your facility. They may be quite adaptable, in which case there will be less work to do in advance to prepare them. However, the opposite may also be true, which will require you to take meaningful steps in order to achieve buy-in and train employees to properly use the new entrances. With the increased importance of workplace security, discussing new entrances with  workforces will help maintain a safer environment Communicate through the decision-making process All of this will need to be communicated to your staff, of course. There are a number of ways to disseminate information without it appearing to come down as a dictate. Your personnel are a community, so news about changes should be shared rather than simply decreed. As part of this process, you’ll need to give some thought to the level of involvement you want for your staff in the decision-making process. Finally, do not overlook the special needs among your personnel population. You undoubtedly have older individuals on staff, as well as disabled persons and others who bring service animals to the office. Entrances need to be accessible to all, and you never want to be in the position of having a gap in accessibility pointed out to you by the individual who has been adversely affected. New security entrance installation By communicating early and often with your personnel, you can alleviate a great deal of the anxiety Once you have made the decision about which security entrances to install, training your personnel on how to use the new security entrances – both before and after the installation – will help to smooth the transition. Because workplace security is such a big issue right now, it makes sense to discuss the new entrances in the context of helping to maintain a safer environment. They will prevent violent individuals from entering, decrease theft, and most of all, promote greater peace of mind during the workday. If you can help them take control of their own safety in a responsible way, you have achieved much more than just a compliant workforce. By communicating early and often with your personnel, you can alleviate a great deal of the anxiety and concern that surrounds a significant change in the work environment. Schedule group meetings Consider your employees; what type of communications do they respond best to? A few suggestions to educate staff on the benefits of the new entrances include: Typically, you would communicate a general message 2-3 months in advance and then provide more specific information (for example, impacts to fire egress, using certain entrances during construction) in a follow up message closer to the installation date. Schedule group meetings to: announce the rationale for increased security, share statistics on crime, review the new security changes that are coming, show drawings/photos of the new doors/turnstiles, and show the orientation videos available from the manufacturer. These meetings are an excellent way to work through user questions and directly address any concerns. Once the installation of a new security system is complete, it is a good idea to have an "ambassador" on board to help employees use these new systems Ensure you monitor public areas If you are implementing a lot of new changes, such as a new access control system, new guard service and security entrances, you might consider hosting a ‘security fair’ on a given day and have the selected vendors come for a day with tabletop displays to meet employees and answer questions during their lunch. This could be a great way to break the ice in a large organisation. Make user orientation videos (provided by the manufacturer) available in several ways, for example: Intranet Site Monitors in public areas—lounges, cafeteria, hallways, etc. Send to all staff as email attachments Immediately after installation, once the doors or turnstiles are operational but before they are put into service, train ‘ambassadors’ on how to use the door/turnstile. Have these people monitor and assist employees during peak traffic times. What is the ultimate success of the installation? By communicating clearly and openly with your population you can greatly facilitate adoption and satisfaction If you have thousands of employees, consider dividing them into groups and introduce the new entrance to one group at a time (Group A on Monday, Group B on Tuesday, etc.) to allow a little extra orientation time. Place user education ‘quick steps’ posters next to the door/turnstiles for a few weeks to help employees remember the basic steps and guidelines, e.g., ‘stand in front of the turnstile, swipe badge, wait for green light, proceed.’ Ask your manufacturer to provide these or artwork. While there are always going to be people who are resistant to change, by communicating clearly and openly with your population you can greatly facilitate adoption and satisfaction. Your responsiveness to any issues and complaints that arise during and after the implementation is equally fundamental to the ultimate success of the installation.