561 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
561 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
* * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
||
|
||
This file is a DRAFT chapter intended to be part of the NIST
|
||
Computer Security Handbook. The chapters were prepared by
|
||
different parties and, in some cases, have not been reviewed by
|
||
NIST. The next iteration of a chapter could be SUBSTANTIALLY
|
||
different than the current version. If you wish to provide
|
||
comments on the chapters, please email them to roback@ecf.ncsl.gov
|
||
or mail them to Ed Roback/Room B154, Bldg 225/NIST/Gaithersburg, MD
|
||
20899.
|
||
|
||
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
||
|
||
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
|
||
|
||
|
||
Chapter 6: Computer and Information Security Policy
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.1 Introduction to Computer Security Policy
|
||
|
||
Organizations rely on IT resources today to handle vast amounts of
|
||
information. Because the data can vary widely in type and in
|
||
degree of sensitivity, employees need to be able to exercise
|
||
flexibility in handling and protecting it. It would not be
|
||
practical or cost-effective to require that all data be handled in
|
||
the same manner or be subject to the same protection requirements.
|
||
Without some degree of standardization, however, inconsistencies
|
||
can develop that introduce risks.
|
||
|
||
Formal IT security policy helps establish standards for IT resource
|
||
protection by assigning program management responsibilities and
|
||
providing basic rules, guidelines, and definitions for everyone in
|
||
the organization. Policy thus helps prevent inconsistencies that
|
||
can introduce risks, and policy serves as a basis for the
|
||
enforcement of more detailed rules and procedures. Ideally, policy
|
||
will be sufficiently clear and comprehensive to be accepted and
|
||
followed throughout the organization yet flexible enough to
|
||
accommodate a wide range of data, activities, and resources.
|
||
|
||
Policy formulation is an important step toward standardization of
|
||
security activities for IT resources. IT security policy is
|
||
generally formulated from the input of many members of an
|
||
organization, including security officials, line managers, and IT
|
||
resource specialists. However, policy is ultimately approved and
|
||
issued by the organization's senior management. In environments
|
||
where employees feel inundated with policies, directives,
|
||
guidelines and procedures, an IT security policy should be
|
||
introduced in a manner that ensures that management's unqualified
|
||
support is clear. The organization's policy is management's
|
||
vehicle for emphasizing the commitment to IT security and making
|
||
clear the expectations for employee involvement and accountability.
|
||
|
||
This chapter will discuss IT security policy in terms of the
|
||
different types (program-level and issue-specific), components, and
|
||
aspects of implementation. Potential cost and interdependencies
|
||
will also be noted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2 Policy Types: Program-Level and Issue-Specific
|
||
|
||
Two types of policy will typically need to be developed to meet an
|
||
organization's needs: program-level and issue-specific. Program-
|
||
level policy's main function is to establish the security program,
|
||
assign program management responsibilities, state the
|
||
organizationwide IT security goals and objectives, and provide a
|
||
basis for enforcement. Issue-specific policies also need to be
|
||
developed, in order to identify and define specific areas of
|
||
concern and to state the organization's position and expectations
|
||
in relation to them. Following are discussions on these two basic
|
||
types of policy.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.1 Program-level Policy
|
||
|
||
As discussed above, program-level policy is broad in scope and far-
|
||
reaching in applicability. To make the subject more manageable, an
|
||
effective approach to a discussion of program-level IT security
|
||
policy is to break general policy into its basic components:
|
||
purpose, scope, goals, responsibilities, and enforcement.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.1.1 Components of Program-level Policy
|
||
|
||
Purpose: A primary purpose of program-level policy is to establish
|
||
the IT security program. This includes defining the program
|
||
management structure, the reporting responsibilities, the roles of
|
||
individuals and groups throughout the organization, and the
|
||
organizationwide goals of the security program. (Chapter 5
|
||
provides a detailed discussion of security program management and
|
||
administration.)
|
||
|
||
Additionally, program-level policy should serve the purpose of
|
||
emphasizing to all employees the importance of IT security and
|
||
clarifying the individual employee's role and responsibilities. IT
|
||
security policy may be met with a degree of skepticism unless given
|
||
appropriate visibility and support by top management, and that
|
||
visibility and support should be clearly and energetically
|
||
reflected in the program-level policy and in its emphasis on
|
||
employee participation.
|
||
|
||
The program-level policy should thus firmly establish individual
|
||
employee accountability. Employees should be made aware via the
|
||
policy that even if they are not designated IT security program
|
||
personnel, they nonetheless have significant IT security
|
||
responsibilities.
|
||
|
||
Scope: Program-level policy should be of sufficient breadth of
|
||
scope to include all of the organization's IT resources, including
|
||
facilities, hardware, software, information, and personnel. In
|
||
some instances, it may be appropriate for a policy to name specific
|
||
assets, such as major sites, installations, and large systems. In
|
||
addition to such specified assets, it is important to include an
|
||
overview of all of the types of IT resources for which the
|
||
organization is responsible, such as workstations, Local Area
|
||
Networks (LANs), standalone microcomputers, etc.
|
||
|
||
Goals: According to the National Research Council's Computers at
|
||
Risk, published in 1991, the three security-related needs
|
||
universally most emphasized among IT resource experts and the
|
||
general computer user community are integrity, availability, and
|
||
confidentiality. These concepts are the focus of many discussions
|
||
in this handbook as well. These concepts should be the basis of
|
||
the goals established for an organization in its IT security
|
||
policy. Integrity means assuring that information is kept intact,
|
||
and not lost, damaged, or modified in an authorized manner.
|
||
Availability means assuring that information is accessible to
|
||
authorized users when needed and that, to the extent possible, IT
|
||
systems are safe from accidental or intentional disablement.
|
||
Confidentiality means assuring that information is accessible only
|
||
as authorized and that it cannot be acquired by unauthorized
|
||
personnel and/or via unauthorized means.
|
||
|
||
Goals related to these concepts should be stated in meaningful ways
|
||
to employees based on the given environment. It is important that
|
||
the organization's program-level policy reflect goals that are
|
||
applicable to the specific environment by targeting the kinds of
|
||
activities, information, and terminology that employees are
|
||
familiar with.
|
||
|
||
For instance, in an organization responsible for maintaining large
|
||
but not highly confidential databases, goals related to reduction
|
||
in errors, data loss, or data corruption might be specifically
|
||
stressed. In an organization responsible for maintaining much more
|
||
confidential data, however, goals might emphasize increased
|
||
assurance against unauthorized disclosure.
|
||
|
||
Responsibilities: As noted in the earlier discussion of Purpose,
|
||
program-level policy performs the important function of
|
||
establishing the IT security program and assigning program
|
||
management responsibilities. In addition to the security program
|
||
management responsibilities, many other responsibilities throughout
|
||
the organization should also be discussed in the policy, including
|
||
the role of line managers, applications owners, data users, and the
|
||
computer systems security group.
|
||
|
||
In some instances, the relationships among various individuals and
|
||
groups may also need to be defined in the program-level policy.
|
||
Such clarification can diminish ambiguity and confusion related to
|
||
areas of responsibility or authority. It might be desirable to
|
||
clarify, for example, who is to be responsible for approving the
|
||
security measures to be used for new systems or components being
|
||
installed: Should it be the department line manager where the item
|
||
will be installed? Or should it be a designated inter-departmental
|
||
IT security specialist? It might even be desirable to indicate
|
||
under what circumstances, if any, approval of security measures
|
||
implemented would be warranted by the head of the security program.
|
||
|
||
Overall, the program-level assignment of responsibilities should
|
||
cover those activities and personnel who will be integral to the
|
||
implementation and continuity of the IT security policy.
|
||
|
||
Enforcement: Without a formal, documented IT security policy, it
|
||
is not possible for management to proceed with the development of
|
||
enforcement standards and mechanisms. Program-level policy serves
|
||
as the basis for enforcement by describing penalties and
|
||
disciplinary actions that can result from failure to comply with
|
||
the organization's IT security requirements. Discipline
|
||
commensurate with levels and types of security infractions should
|
||
be discussed. For example, serious offenses, such as theft,
|
||
conspiracy, or intentional acts of sabotage, might be designated by
|
||
policy as punishable by firing and prosecution. Lesser
|
||
infractions, such as pirating software, might be stated as
|
||
punishable by formal written reprimand.
|
||
|
||
Consideration should also be given to the fact that nonconformance
|
||
to policy can be unintentional on the part of employees. For
|
||
example, nonconformance can often be due to a lack of knowledge or
|
||
training. It can also be the result of inadequate communication
|
||
and explanation of the policy. For these reasons, it is desirable
|
||
that, along with enforcement, program-level policy make provisions
|
||
for orientation, training, and compliance within a realistic
|
||
timeframe.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.2 Issue-specific Policy
|
||
|
||
Whereas program-level policy is intended to address the broadest
|
||
aspects of IT security and the IT security program framework,
|
||
issue-specific policies need to be developed to address particular
|
||
kinds of activities and, in some environments, particular systems.
|
||
The types of subjects covered by issue-specific policies are areas
|
||
of current relevance, concern, and, sometimes, controversy upon
|
||
which the organization needs to assert a position. In this manner,
|
||
issue-specific IT security policies help to standardize activities
|
||
and reduce the potential risks posed by inadequate and/or
|
||
inappropriate treatment of the IT resources. Issue-specific
|
||
policies serve to provide guidelines for the further development of
|
||
procedures and practices within the functional elements of an
|
||
organization.
|
||
|
||
Program-level policy is usually broad enough that it does not
|
||
require much modification over time. Issue-specific policies,
|
||
however, are likely to require revision and updating from time to
|
||
time, as changes in technology and related activities take place.
|
||
This is largely because as new technologies develop, some issues
|
||
diminish in importance while new ones continually appear. A major
|
||
challenge to IT security specialists has long been the fact that
|
||
for every new technology there are also new associated problems and
|
||
issues to be addressed.
|
||
|
||
For example, the enormous increase in the use of electronic mail
|
||
(E-mail) systems in recent years has introduced many new issues in
|
||
communications security, which is one of the topics that will be
|
||
briefly discussed later in this section. Many organizations today
|
||
are developing and refining communications security policies in
|
||
order to better address such questions as who should have E-mail
|
||
access, how will privileges be assigned and monitored, for what
|
||
types of activities and information is E-mail sufficiently secure,
|
||
and what criteria should be used for the re-sending (forwarding) of
|
||
messages among users.
|
||
|
||
Another topic of recent notoriety impacting IT security policies is
|
||
the threat posed by computer viruses. New viruses and new methods
|
||
of transmitting them are making it necessary that organizations
|
||
develop policies regulating activities that were once performed
|
||
freely, such as exchanging floppy disks among users, accessing
|
||
electronic bulletinboards, and using shareware products.
|
||
|
||
As for the discussion of program-level policy, a useful approach is
|
||
to first break issue-specific policy into its basic components:
|
||
statement of an issue, statement of the organization's position,
|
||
applicability, roles and responsibilities, and points of contact.
|
||
Thereafter, some of the areas that often require issue-specific
|
||
policies will be covered.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.2.1 Components of Issue-specific Policy
|
||
|
||
Statement of an Issue: In order to formulate a policy on an issue,
|
||
the issue must first be defined, with any relevant terms,
|
||
distinctions, and conditions delineated. For example, an
|
||
organization might want to develop an issue-specific policy on the
|
||
use of "foreign software." "Foreign software" might be defined to
|
||
mean any software, whether applications or data, not approved,
|
||
purchased, screened, managed, and owned by the organization.
|
||
Additionally, the applicable distinctions and conditions might then
|
||
need to be included, for instance, for software privately owned by
|
||
employees but approved for use at work and for software owned and
|
||
used by other businesses under contract to the organization.
|
||
|
||
Statement of the Organization's Position: Once the issue is stated
|
||
and related terms and conditions delineated, the organization's
|
||
position or stance on the issue will need to be clearly stated. To
|
||
continue the example of developing an issue-specific policy on the
|
||
use of foreign software, this would mean stating whether use of
|
||
foreign software as defined is strictly prohibited, whether or not
|
||
there are further guidelines for approval and use, or whether case-
|
||
by-case decisions will be rendered based on some defined criteria.
|
||
|
||
Applicability: Issue-specific policies will also need to include
|
||
statements of applicability. This means clarifying where, how,
|
||
when, to whom, and to what a particular policy applies. For
|
||
example, it could be that the hypothetical policy on foreign
|
||
software is intended to apply only to the organization's own onsite
|
||
resources and employees and is not to be applicable to contractor
|
||
organizations with offices at other locations. Additionally, the
|
||
policy's applicability to employees travelling among different
|
||
sites and/or working at home who need to transport and use disks at
|
||
multiple sites might need to be clarified.
|
||
|
||
Roles and Responsibilities: Also included in issue-specific
|
||
policies should be the assignment of roles and responsibilities.
|
||
This would mean, to continue with the above example, that if the
|
||
policy permits foreign software privately owned by employees to be
|
||
used at work with the appropriate approvals, then the approval
|
||
authority granting such permission would need to be stated.
|
||
Likewise, it would need to be clarified who would be responsible
|
||
for ensuring that only approved foreign software is used on
|
||
organizational IT resources and, perhaps, for monitoring users in
|
||
regard to foreign software.
|
||
|
||
Related to the assignment of roles and responsibilities is the
|
||
inclusion of guidelines for procedures and enforcement. The issue-
|
||
specific policy on foreign-software, for example, might include
|
||
procedural guidelines for checking disks used by employees at home
|
||
or at other locations. It might also state what the penalties
|
||
would be for using unapproved foreign software on the
|
||
organization's IT systems.
|
||
|
||
Points of Contact: For any issue-specific policy, the appropriate
|
||
individuals in the organization to contact for further information,
|
||
guidance, and enforcement should be indicated. For example, for
|
||
some issues the point of contact might be a line manager; for other
|
||
issues it might be a facility manager, technical support person, or
|
||
system administrator. For yet other issues, the point-of-contact
|
||
might be a security program representative. Using the above
|
||
example once more, employees would need to know whether the point
|
||
of contact for questions and procedural information would be
|
||
his/her immediate superior, a system administrator, or a computer
|
||
security official.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.2.2 Areas Appropriate for Issue-specific Policies
|
||
|
||
Some of the areas in which management today needs to consider
|
||
issue-specific IT security policies are covered in this section.
|
||
These topics are intended to provide examples and serve as sources
|
||
for ideas and analysis. Although many of these topics are standard
|
||
to any discussion of IT security, an organization would necessarily
|
||
need to tailor its policies relating to them to meet its own unique
|
||
needs.
|
||
|
||
Physical security: The physical protection of and access to IT
|
||
resources and facilities will generally need to be addressed in one
|
||
or more specific policies. In organizations with extensive IT
|
||
systems and equipment, this may mean developing policies that
|
||
address such issues as who has access to what sites/locations; how
|
||
often risks to installations are be analyzed and by whom; what
|
||
types of physical access controls and monitoring equipment are put
|
||
in place; what responsibilities will be assigned to trained
|
||
security officials and what activities and responsibilities will be
|
||
required of all employees.
|
||
|
||
Personnel Security: Depending on the types of activities being
|
||
performed, degree of data sensitivity to be encountered, and sheer
|
||
numbers of personnel, specific security policies related to
|
||
personnel screening, requirements, hiring, training, evaluating,
|
||
and firing may need to be developed and administered. It may be
|
||
appropriate that a trained personnel security specialist initiate,
|
||
review, approve, and perform all security-related personnel
|
||
actions.
|
||
|
||
Communications Security: Communications security is a complex
|
||
technical specialty unto itself. In organizations where day-to-day
|
||
business relies on communicating routinely with remote locations,
|
||
the security of the communications transmissions and lines is
|
||
usually an issue that needs to be addressed by policy. If the data
|
||
being transmitted is highly sensitive, then this concern is
|
||
magnified, and issue-specific security policies may need to be
|
||
developed on a number of activities. Issues associated with the
|
||
use of cryptography and its related options and procedures
|
||
(discussed in Chapter 19), the use of modems and dial-in lines, and
|
||
precautions against wiretapping are just some of the potential
|
||
issues to be addressed. Additionally, as noted earlier, the
|
||
proliferation of E-mail has introduced many security- and privacy-
|
||
related issues for which organizations need to document positions
|
||
and policies.
|
||
|
||
Administrative Security: Administrative security as it applies to
|
||
IT system management and oversight activities comprises many
|
||
potential security policy issues. Included are such topics as
|
||
input/output controls, training and awareness, security
|
||
certification/accreditation, incident reporting, system
|
||
configurations and change controls, and system documentation.
|
||
|
||
Risk Management: Risk management involves assessing IT resources
|
||
in terms of potential threats and vulnerabilities and planning the
|
||
means for counteracting those identified risks. Issues that will
|
||
need to be addressed by policies include how, by whom, and when the
|
||
assessments should be performed; and what type of documentation
|
||
should result.
|
||
|
||
Contingency Planning: Related to Risk Management, Contingency
|
||
Planning means planning for the emergency actions to be taken in
|
||
the event of damage, failure, and/or other disabling events that
|
||
could occur to systems. Issues that need to be addressed by
|
||
policies include determining which systems are most critical and
|
||
therefore of highest priority in contingency planning; how the
|
||
plans will be tested, how often, and by whom; and who will be
|
||
responsible for approving the plans.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3 Policy Implementation
|
||
|
||
Policy implementation is a process. Policy cannot merely be
|
||
pronounced by upper management in a one-time statement or directive
|
||
with high expectations of its being readily accepted and acted
|
||
upon. Rather, just as formulating and drafting policy involves a
|
||
process, implementation similarly involves a process, which begins
|
||
with the formal issuance of policy.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3.1 Policy Visibility
|
||
|
||
Especially high visibility should be afforded the formal issuance
|
||
of IT security policy. This is due to a combination of factors,
|
||
including the following:
|
||
|
||
* Nearly all employees at all levels will in some way be affected;
|
||
* Major organizational resources are being addressed;
|
||
* Many new terms, procedures, and activities will be introduced.
|
||
|
||
Providing visibility through such avenues as management
|
||
presentations, panel discussions, guest speakers, question/answer
|
||
forums, and newsletters can be beneficial, as resources permit.
|
||
Including IT security as a regular topic at staff meetings at all
|
||
levels of the organization can also be a helpful tactic.
|
||
|
||
As an aspect of providing visibility for IT security policies,
|
||
information should also be included regarding the applicable higher
|
||
level directives and requirements to which the organization is
|
||
responding. Educating employees as to the requirements specified
|
||
by the Computer Security Act and related OMB circulars will help
|
||
emphasize the significance and timeliness of computer security, and
|
||
|
||
it will help provide a rational basis for the introduction of IT
|
||
security policies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3.2 Policy Documentation
|
||
|
||
Once IT security policy has been approved and issued, it may be
|
||
initially publicized through memorandums, presentations, staff
|
||
meetings, or a variety of means. As soon as possible, though, it
|
||
will also need to be incorporated into formal policy documentation
|
||
as well. The process of documenting policies will usually require
|
||
updating existing documentation as well as creating new
|
||
documentation.
|
||
|
||
Existing Documentation: IT security will need to be integrated
|
||
into many existing activities and practices throughout many levels
|
||
of the organization. This integration will be facilitated by
|
||
revising any existing applicable documentation to reflect new
|
||
procedures, rules, and requirements. Included may be the
|
||
modification of various existing documents, forms, and plans at all
|
||
levels of the organization to reflect the IT policy.
|
||
|
||
For example, if IT equipment purchases and/or upgrades have been
|
||
reviewed and approved based on documented criteria such as cost,
|
||
productivity, maintainability, etc., then security considerations
|
||
may need to be introduced into that criteria. Also, if it has
|
||
previously been the documented policy to review the progress and
|
||
status of internal IT systems under development, then security-
|
||
related concerns should be introduced into that review process.
|
||
|
||
New Documentation: Additionally, the development of many new
|
||
documents, such as guidelines, standards, and procedures, may be
|
||
required. This is often true in large organizations performing
|
||
many different activities and having many levels of management. In
|
||
such environments, different functional elements may have widely
|
||
differing IT systems and needs to accommodate. It is therefore
|
||
generally more practical, to the extent possible, to allow elements
|
||
to tailor their implementations of policy to meet their unique
|
||
needs. This can be accomplished through the development of
|
||
documents containing more detailed procedures and practices to be
|
||
used for specific kinds of systems and activities within
|
||
functional elements.
|
||
|
||
For example, organizations will want to issue policies to decrease
|
||
the likelihood of data loss due to technology failures and/or
|
||
operator errors. A program-level policy might state something to
|
||
the effect that: "It is the policy of the organization to ensure
|
||
against data loss due to accidents or mishaps." In an area where
|
||
extensive writing and editing of lengthy documents is performed,
|
||
such as a word processing or technical publications unit, security
|
||
documentation might be developed on saving work in-progress much
|
||
more often than would usually be done, and/or utilizing automatic
|
||
"save" features on IT systems and software. In a different type
|
||
of functional area, however, where, for example, databases are
|
||
maintained that do not undergo significant changes very often, the
|
||
security documentation might focus on procedures for the database
|
||
administrator to use in performing periodic (daily, weekly, etc.)
|
||
backups of the system.
|
||
|
||
Appropriate visibility should be afforded the IT security policy
|
||
through all applicable documentation. The more integral security
|
||
policy is to all other aspects of daily routines, the more quickly
|
||
the associated actions and practices will become natural to doing
|
||
business. Ultimately, among the goals of policy are the
|
||
assimilation of a common body of knowledge and values and the
|
||
demonstration of appropriate corresponding behaviors. Those goals
|
||
will be expedited by making the IT security policy integral to the
|
||
organization through all avenues.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4 Cost Considerations
|
||
|
||
There are a number of potential costs associated with developing
|
||
and implementing IT security policies. In some environments, the
|
||
major costs may be those incurred through the numerous
|
||
administrative and management activities required for drafting,
|
||
reviewing, disseminating, and publicizing the policies. In some
|
||
organizations, though, successful policy implementation may require
|
||
additional staffing, training, and equipment. In general, how
|
||
costly IT security policy development and implementation are to an
|
||
organization will depend upon how much change needs to be
|
||
accomplished in order to ensure adequate security and a basic
|
||
standardization throughout the organization.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5 Interrelationships
|
||
|
||
IT security policy can be related to nearly every topic covered in
|
||
this handbook on some level. This is because all of the topics
|
||
discussed in the handbook have associated issues that organizations
|
||
may need to address via policies. The topics most directly
|
||
related, however, are: IT security program management and
|
||
administration; risk management; personnel; security training and
|
||
awareness; contingency planning; and physical and environmental
|
||
security.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6 Conclusion
|
||
|
||
Formulating viable IT security policies is a challenge for an
|
||
organization and requires communication and understanding of the
|
||
organizational goals and potential benefits to be derived from
|
||
policies. Through a carefully structured approach to policy
|
||
development, which includes the delegation of program management
|
||
responsibility and an understanding of both program-level and
|
||
issue-specific policy components, a coherent set of policies -
|
||
integrated into sensible practices and procedures - can be
|
||
developed
|
||
6.1, para 2: IT security policy helps to provide basic standards,
|
||
guidelines, and rules for everyone in an organization.
|
||
|
||
6.2, para 1: Program-level IT security policy establishes the
|
||
security program and assigns program management responsibilities.
|
||
|
||
6.2.1.1, para 4: Program-level policy should be sufficiently broad
|
||
in scope to include all of the organization's IT resources.
|
||
|
||
6.2.1.1, para 5: Program-level IT security policy goals should
|
||
stress the universal concepts of integrity, availability, and
|
||
confidentiality.
|
||
|
||
6.2.2, para 1: Issue-specific policies address particular
|
||
activities, concerns, and, sometimes, systems.
|
||
|
||
6.2.2, para 4: New products, developments, and trends often
|
||
require the creation of corresponding issue-specific policies.
|
||
|
||
6.2.2.2, para 1: Many activities within an organization should be
|
||
considered when developing issue-specific policies, including
|
||
physical security, personnel, communications, administrative
|
||
security, risk management, and contingency planning.
|
||
|
||
6.3.1, para 1: IT security policy should be given especially high
|
||
visibility in order to help ensure employee awareness and
|
||
understanding.
|
||
|
||
6.3.2, para 4: Many existing documents of an organization will
|
||
need to be revised to reflect IT security policies, and new
|
||
documents may also need to be developed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|